IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0220495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Routine patient surveys: Patients’ preferences and information gained by healthcare providers

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea C Schöpf
  • Werner Vach
  • Marcel Jakob
  • Franziska Saxer

Abstract

Background: Patient feedback after contact with a hospital is regarded as an important source of information for the improvement of local healthcare services. Routine patient surveys are in widespread use to obtain such feedback. While general principles for the composition of this kind of surveys have been described in the literature, it is unknown which method of contact and topics of feedback are important to patients in postcontact healthcare surveys. Material and methods: We invited 2931 consecutive patients who had in- or outpatient contact with the Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology at the University Hospital Basel to an anonymous survey. They were asked whether they were generally in favor of feedback surveys. They also had the opportunity to state their preferred form of contact (text message, app, email, online or letter) and provide up to three topics that they regarded as specifically important in patient surveys. Results: A total of 745 patients participated in the survey (25.4%), of these 61.9% expressed the preference to be surveyed, and 69.1% selected `letter’ as one of the preferred forms of contact. Favoring only `letter’ contact increased substantially with age. Overall 54.6% of patients stated at least one topic that they wished to give feedback on. The most frequent topics were related to treatment and rather general aspects regarding staff and overall impression. The wish to include suggestions for improvements was rarely mentioned as specific topic. Conclusions: The majority of patients seem to be rather indifferent to the existence and content of patient surveys. They mention a wide range of topics from general to specific ones, but do not express interest in the opportunity to suggest changes. There is a need to effectively engage patients in healthcare planning using new approaches to obtain valuable feedback on patients’ hospital stay and contact experiences. These new approaches should ideally be more informative and cost-effective than the current practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea C Schöpf & Werner Vach & Marcel Jakob & Franziska Saxer, 2019. "Routine patient surveys: Patients’ preferences and information gained by healthcare providers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-14, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0220495
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220495
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220495&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0220495?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Faraz Ahmed & Jenni Burt & Martin Roland, 2014. "Measuring Patient Experience: Concepts and Methods," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(3), pages 235-241, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Óscar Brito Fernandes & Petra Baji & Dionne Kringos & Niek Klazinga & László Gulácsi & Armin Lucevic & Imre Boncz & Márta Péntek, 2019. "Patient experiences with outpatient care in Hungary: results of an online population survey," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 79-90, June.
    2. Li Cao & Virasakdi Chongsuvivatwong & Edward B. McNeil, 2022. "The Association between mHealth App Use and Healthcare Satisfaction among Clients at Outpatient Clinics: A Cross-Sectional Study in Inner Mongolia, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-11, June.
    3. Charlotte T. Lee & Susanne Phillips & Susan Tiso & Camille Fitzpatrick, 2019. "Exploring Interpersonal Relationships in a Nurse-Managed Clinic and Their Impact on Clinical Outcomes," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(3), pages 21582440198, July.
    4. Anne-Gaëlle Corroller & Julia Bonastre, 2023. "Patient-reported measures: how useful in health economics?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(1), pages 1-4, February.
    5. Joy Davis & Sue Sinni & Stephen Maloney & Lorraine Walker, 2022. "Strategies Australian Hospitals Utilize to Incorporate Patient Feedback in the Delivery and Measurement of Person-Centered Care: A Scoping Review," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 31(5), pages 782-794, June.
    6. Fernanda Manuela Loureiro & Ana Vanessa dos Reis Ameixa Antunes & Tiina Pelander & Zaida Borges Charepe, 2021. "The experience of school‐aged children with hospitalisation," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(3-4), pages 550-558, February.
    7. Hyeon-Young Kim & Ji-Hye Lee & Eun-Hye Lee, 2021. "Virtual Experience of Perioperative Patients: Walking in the Patients’ Shoes Using Virtual Reality and Blended Learning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-12, June.
    8. Martina Baránková & Katarína Greškovičová & Bronislava Strnádelová & Katarina Krizova & Júlia Halamová, 2022. "Let Us Take It into Our Own Hands: Patient Experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-15, October.
    9. Bishnu Bahadur Bajgain & Kalpana Thapa Bajgain & Sujan Badal & Fariba Aghajafari & Jeanette Jackson & Maria-Jose Santana, 2020. "Patient-Reported Experiences in Accessing Primary Healthcare among Immigrant Population in Canada: A Rapid Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-20, November.

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0220495. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.