Using Press Ganey Provider Feedback to Improve Patient Satisfaction: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Using Press Ganey Provider Feedback to Improve Patient Satisfaction: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/acem.13248
复制
发表时间：
2017-09-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
French, L. Keith
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Newgard, Craig D.;Fu, Rongwei;French, L. Keith
目的：目的是进行一项随机对照试验，以评估每月从Press Ganey数据中获得的提供者漏斗图反馈报告和半年一次的面对面辅导会议的可行性、后勤和潜在效果，以提高患者满意度得分。方法：这是一项随机对照试验，在一个城市学术急诊科的25名急诊医学教员中进行。我们招募了至少有12个月Press Ganey基线数据的全职临床教师，他们预计在急诊科工作至少12个月。提供者按1:1的比例随机分为干预组或对照组。干预组最初有一个20分钟的会议，介绍漏斗图反馈工具，并根据他们的基线Press Ganey得分进行标准化反馈，然后每月收到一封电子邮件，其中包含他们的个性化漏斗图，描述了12个月的累积Press Ganey得分（与他们的基线得分和所有提供者的平均得分相比）。主要结果是治疗组在12个月时Press Ganey“医生总体”评分的差异。我们使用协方差模型的加权分析来分析研究组，考虑了提供者和基线得分的调查次数的变化。结果：在36名符合条件的教师中，我们招募了25名提供者，其中13名随机分配到干预组，12名随机分配到对照组。在研究期间，Press Ganey收到了815份调查，每个供应商的调查从4份到71份不等。对于12个月的标准化医生总体评分（主要结局），干预组与对照组之间无差异（差异= 1.3分，95%可信区间= -2.4 ~ 5.9,p = 0.47）。同样，在评估Press Ganey调查的四类医生特定患者满意度得分时，两组之间也没有差异（均p < 0.05）。结论：在这项每月提供者漏斗图Press Ganey反馈报告的试点试验中，干预组和对照组在12个月后的患者满意度评分没有差异。虽然本研究无法检测结果差异，但我们证明了可行性、逻辑性和效应大小，可用于为未来的明确试验提供信息。
Objective: The objective was to conduct a pilot randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility, logistics, and potential effect of monthly provider funnel plot feedback reports from Press Ganey data and semiannual face-to-face coaching sessions to improve patient satisfaction scores.Methods: This was a pilot randomized controlled trial of 25 emergency medicine faculty providers in one urban academic emergency department. We enrolled full-time clinical faculty with at least 12 months of baseline Press Ganey data, who anticipated working in the ED for at least 12 additional months. Providers were randomized into intervention or control groups in a 1: 1 ratio. The intervention group had an initial 20-minute meeting to introduce the funnel plot feedback tool and standardized feedback based on their baseline Press Ganey scores and then received a monthly e-mail with their individualized funnel plot depicting cumulative Press Ganey scores (compared to their baseline score and the mean score of all providers) for 12 months. The primary outcome was the difference in Press Ganey "doctor-overall" scores between treatment groups at 12 months. We used a weighted analysis of covariance model to analyze the study groups, accounting for variation in the number of surveys by provider and baseline scores.Results: Of 36 eligible faculty, we enrolled 25 providers, 13 of whom were randomized to the intervention group and 12 to the control group. During the study period, there were 815 Press Ganey surveys returned, ranging from four to 71 surveys per provider. For the standardized overall doctor score over 12 months (primary outcome), there was no difference between the intervention and control groups (difference = 1.3 points, 95% confidence interval = -2.4 to 5.9, p = 0.47). Similarly, there was no difference between groups when evaluating the four categories of doctor-specific patient satisfaction scores from the Press Ganey survey (all p > 0.05).Conclusions: In this pilot trial of monthly provider funnel plot Press Ganey feedback reports, there was no difference in patient satisfaction scores between the intervention and control groups after 12 months. While this study was not powered to detect outcome differences, we demonstrate the feasibility, logistics, and effect sizes that could be used to inform future definitive trials.