Can different patient satisfaction survey methods yield consistent results? Comparison of three surveys

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Objective: To examine the consistency of survey estimates of patient satisfaction with interpersonal aspects of hospital experience. Design: Interview and postal surveys, evidence from three independent population surveys being compared. Setting: Scotland and Lothian. Subjects: Randomly selected members of the general adult population who had received hospital care in the past 12 months. Main outcome measures: Percentages of respondents dissatisfied with aspects of patient care. Results: For items covering respect for privacy, treatment with dignity, sensitivity to feelings, treatment as an individual, and clear explanation of care there was good agreement among the surveys despite differences in wording. But for items to do with being encouraged and given time to ask questions and being listened to by doctors there was substantial disagreement. Conclusions: Evidence regarding levels of patient dissatisfaction from national or local surveys should be calibrated against evidence from other surveys to improve reliability. Some important aspects of patient satisfaction seem to have been reliably estimated by surveys of all Scottish NHS users commissioned by the management executive, but certain questions may have underestimated the extent of dissatisfaction, possibly as a result of choice of wording. High levels of satisfaction with regard to personal treatment by hospital staff, involvement in decisions, and communication with doctors have been reported in successive interview surveys in Scotland Levels of satisfaction with doctor-patient com- munication and involvement in decisions are sensi- tive to changes in wording Asking patients if they agree with a negative description of their hospital experience tends to produce greater apparent satisfaction than asking if they agree with a positive description