IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aad/iseicj/v3y2015i0p419-426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient Satisfaction With Orthopedic And Prosthetic Medical Devices

Author

Listed:
  • Ivona Malovecká

    (Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Organization and Management in Pharmacy, Comenius University in Bratislava)

  • Daniela Mináriková

    (Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Organization and Management in Pharmacy, Comenius University in Bratislava)

  • Viliam Foltán

    (Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Organization and Management in Pharmacy, Comenius University in Bratislava)

Abstract

Collecting information about patient satisfaction with orthopedic and prosthetic medical devices in terms of utility, tolerance, and compliance is essential for verifying and improving the quality of these devices. In addition, such information is useful for improving the patients’ quality of life, and the quality management systems of health care providers. This study assessed patient satisfaction with these devices from a sample of patients with orthopedic, neurologic, and rheumatic diseases at the Specialized Hospital for Orthopedic Prosthetics and at the premises of the Dispenser of Orthopedic and Prosthetic Medical Devices, both in Bratislava in the Slovak Republic. The assessment involved a translated and validated questionnaire about patient satisfaction with orthopedic and prosthetic medical devices to evaluate key factors of weight, fit, appearance, comfort, pain free, free of abrasiveness, ease of application, and durability of each device. The study samples consisted of patients with lower limb problems (42.5%), spine problems (26.9%), and a combination of leg and spine issues (25.9%). Orthopedic disease occurred in 73.6% of these patients, a combination of orthopedic and neurologic disease in 13.5%, and neurologic disease in 7.3%. Orthopedic insoles (36.3%), hip belts (17.6%), and the corset on the spine (5.2%) were the most used devices. Overall, the medical devices rated highly, with a high proportion of patients voting “strongly satisfied” in five of the eight key factors (range 51.8 to 63.2%), followed by a moderately lower proportion for durability (43.5%), comfort (37.3%), and appearance (31.1%). The comfort in wearing the device received the greatest patient dissatisfaction (22.8% of patients), followed by appearance (12.4%), and then fit (7.3%).

Suggested Citation

  • Ivona Malovecká & Daniela Mináriková & Viliam Foltán, 2015. "Patient Satisfaction With Orthopedic And Prosthetic Medical Devices," CBU International Conference Proceedings, ISE Research Institute, vol. 3(0), pages 419-426, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:aad:iseicj:v:3:y:2015:i:0:p:419-426
    DOI: 10.12955/cbup.v3.632
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ojs.journals.cz/index.php/CBUIC/article/view/632/586
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.12955/cbup.v3.632?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Orthopedicsprosthetic; medical device; patient satisfaction; quality; patient quality of life; quality management; health care provider;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aad:iseicj:v:3:y:2015:i:0:p:419-426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Petr Hájek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ojs.journals.cz/index.php/CBUIC .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.