Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Satisfaction in Emergency General Surgery: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study

  • Original Scientific Report
  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The importance of the patient experience is increasingly being recognised. However, there is a dearth of studies regarding factors affecting patient-reported outcomes in emergency general surgery (EGS), including none from the Southern Hemisphere. We aim to prospectively assess factors associated with patient satisfaction in this setting.

Methods

In this prospective cross-sectional study, all consecutive adult patients admitted to an acute surgical unit over four weeks were invited to complete a validated Patient-Reported Experience Measures questionnaire. These were completed either in person when discharge was imminent or by telephone  <4 weeks post-discharge. Responses were used to determine factors associated with overall patient satisfaction.

Results

From 146 eligible patients, 100 (68%) completed the questionnaire, with a mean overall satisfaction score of 8.3/10. On multivariate analyses, eight factors were significantly associated with increased overall satisfaction. Five of these were similar to those previously prescribed by other like studies, being patient age  >50 years, sufficient analgesia, satisfaction with the level of senior medical staff, important questions answered by nurses and confidence in decisions made about treatment. Three identified factors were new: sufficient privacy in the emergency department, sufficient notice prior to discharge and feeling well looked after in hospital.

Conclusions

Factors associated with patient satisfaction were identified at multiple points of the patient journey. While some of these have been reported in similar studies, most differed. Hospitals should assess factors valued by their EGS population prior to implementing initiatives to improve patient satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jones CH, O’Neill S, McLean KA et al (2017) Patient experience and overall satisfaction after emergency abdominal surgery. BMC Surg 17(1):76

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Priebe S, Golden E, McCabe R et al (2012) Patient-reported outcome data generated in a clinical intervention in community mental health care-psychometric properties. BMC Psychiatry 12:113

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Varni JW, Burwinkle TM, Seid M (2005) The PedsQL as a pediatric patient-reported outcome: reliability and validity of the PedsQL measurement model in 25,000 children. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 5(6):705–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Apers S, Kovacs AH, Luyckx K et al (2015) Assessment of Patterns of patient-reported outcomes in adults with congenital heart disease-international study (APPROACH-IS): rationale, design, and methods. Int J Cardiol 179:334–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dickfos M, Ibrahim H, Evans A et al (2018) Cohort study on emergency general surgery patients and an observation unit. ANZ J Surg 88(7–8):713–717

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Page D, Dooreemeah D, Thiruchelvam D (2014) Acute surgical unit: the Australasian experience. ANZ J Surg 84:25–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bazzi ZT, Kinnear N, Bazzi CS et al (2018) Impact of an acute surgical unit on outcomes in acute cholecystitis. ANZ J Surg 88(12):E835–E839

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kinnear N, Bramwell E, Frazetto A et al (2019) The acute surgical unit improves outcomes in appendicectomy. ANZ J Surg. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans15141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kinnear N, Britten-Jones P, Hennessey D et al (2017) Impact of an acute surgical unit on patient outcomes in South Australia. ANZ J Surg 87(10):825–829

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. DeGirolamo K, Murphy PB, D’Souza K et al (2017) Processes of health care delivery, education, and provider satisfaction in acute care surgery: a systematic review. Am Surg 83(12):1438–1446

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kinnear N, Tran M, Han J et al (2019) Does emergency general surgery model affect staff satisfaction, training and working hours? ANZ J Surg 90(3):262–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maa J, Carter JT, Gosnell JE et al (2007) The surgical hospitalist: a new model for emergency surgical care. J Am Coll Surg 205(5):704–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anantha RV, Parry N, Vogt K et al (2014) Implementation of an acute care emergency surgical service: a cost analysis from the surgeon’s perspective. Can J Surg 57(2):E9–E14

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Schmocker RK, Cherney Stafford LM, Siy AB et al (2015) Understanding the determinants of patient satisfaction with surgical care using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surgical care survey (S-CAHPS). Surgery (United States) 158(6):1724–1733

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kahn SA, Iannuzzi JC, Stassen NA et al (2015) Measuring satisfaction: factors that drive hospital consumer assessment of healthcare providers and systems survey responses in a trauma and acute care surgery population. Am Surg 81(5):537–543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hommel G (1988) A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 75(2):383–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/

  18. Forrestal B, Hynes T, Clarke-Moloney M et al (2013) Patient satisfaction following emergency admission via a surgical assessment unit and an emergency department. Ir J Med Sci 182(2):261–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kwong E, Neuburger J, Murray D et al (2018) Feasibility of collecting and assessing patient-reported outcomes for emergency admissions: laparotomy for gastrointestinal conditions. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 5(1):e000238

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Navarro AP, Hardy E, Oakley B et al (2017) The front-line general surgery consultant as a new model of emergency care. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(7):550–554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ali TF, Warkentin LM, Gazala S et al (2015) Self-reported outcomes in individuals aged 65 and older admitted for treatment to an acute care surgical service: a 6-month prospective cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc 63(11):2388–2394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Eijsvoogel CF, Peters RW, Budding AJ et al (2014) Implementation of an acute surgical admission ward. Br J Surg 101(11):1434–1438

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ullah MF, Fleming C, Fox C et al (2019) Patient experience in a surgical assessment unit following a closed-loop audit using a Kaizen Lean system. Ir J Med Sci 189(2):641–647

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Johnstone C, Harwood R, Gilliam A et al (2015) A clinical decisions unit improves emergency general surgery care delivery. Clin Gov Int J 20(4):191–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. National Health Service (2010) Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. Department of Health [Internet]. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213823/dh_117794.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2019

  26. Nilsson E, Orwelius L, Kristenson M (2016) Patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish National Quality Registers. J Intern Med 279(2):141–153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. US Dept of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration USA (2006) Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance. Health Qual Life Outcomes 4:79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Williams K, Sansoni J, Morris D et al (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures: literature review. ACSQHC [Internet]. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/PROMs-Literature-Review-December-2016.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2019

  29. Waljee JF, Ghaferi A, Cassidy R et al (2016) Are patient-reported outcomes correlated with clinical outcomes after surgery? A population-based study. Ann Surg 264(4):682–689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schlesinger M, Grob R, Shaller D (2015) Using patient-reported information to improve clinical practice. Health Serv Res 50(Suppl 2):2116–2154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Allcock C (2015) Outcomes-based commissioning—much promise, but is it something that CCGs can actually deliver on? The Health Foundation, London. http://www.health.org.uk/blog/outcomes-based-commissioning-much-promise-it-something-ccgs-can-actually-deliver. Accessed 01 Dec 2019

  32. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2010) Australian safety and quality framework for health care. ACSQHC, Sydney. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/Australian-SandQ-Framework1.pdf. Accessed 01 Dec 2019

  33. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E (2012) Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 62(5):337–347

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Weldring T, Smith SM (2013) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 6:61–68

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N et al (2007) The Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 45(5 Suppl 1):S3–S11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bradley M, Braverman J, Harrington M et al (2016) Patients’ motivations and interest in research: characteristics of volunteers for patient-led projects on PatientsLikeMe. Res Involv Engagem 2:33

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Mitchell SA et al (2016) Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Health Qual Life Outcomes 14:24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funding from the University of Adelaide and its Adelaide Graduate Centre, as well as the Hospital Research Foundation, National Health and Medical Research Council postgraduate scholarship and the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. No preregistration exists for this study. Requests to access the dataset from qualified researchers trained in human subject confidentiality protocols may be sent to Ned Kinnear at Ned.Kinnear@adelaide.edu.au.

Funding

In relation to this work, Ned Kinnear received a University of Adelaide Research Training Program Scholarship, a Hospital Research Foundation postgraduate scholarship, a National Health and Medical Research Council postgraduate scholarship and the Brendan Dooley and Gordon Trinca Trauma Research Scholarship from the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. However, no funders influenced the study, nor had access to the manuscript prior to publication. For the remaining authors, no relevant sources of funding were declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia

    Ned Kinnear, Michael O’Callaghan, Tarik Sammour & James Moore

  2. Department of Surgery, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia

    Matheesha Herath, Samantha Jolly, Jennie Han, Minh Tran, Dominic Parker, Christopher Dobbins, Tarik Sammour & James Moore

  3. South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative, Urology Unit, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia

    Michael O’Callaghan

  4. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Adelaide, Australia

    Michael O’Callaghan

  5. Department of Urology, Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland

    Derek Hennessey

Authors
  1. Ned Kinnear
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matheesha Herath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Samantha Jolly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jennie Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Minh Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dominic Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael O’Callaghan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Derek Hennessey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Christopher Dobbins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Tarik Sammour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. James Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NK created the report concept, performed data analysis and wrote the initial manuscript. MH, SJ, JH, MT and DP performed data collection. NK and SJ performed literature review. MH, SJ, DP, DH, CD, TS and JM guided the scope and approach of the study and refined the manuscript. MOC performed statistical analyses. All authors refined the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ned Kinnear.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 82 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kinnear, N., Herath, M., Jolly, S. et al. Patient Satisfaction in Emergency General Surgery: A Prospective Cross-Sectional Study. World J Surg 44, 2950–2958 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05561-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05561-8

Search

Navigation