Advertisement

Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp 1165–1172 | Cite as

Pediatric interventional radiology clinic – how are we doing?

  • Jonathan Rubenstein
  • Julie C. Zettel
  • Eric Lee
  • Michelle Cote
  • Albert Aziza
  • Bairbre L. ConnollyEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Development of a pediatric interventional radiology clinic is a necessary component of providing a pediatric interventional radiology service. Patient satisfaction is important when providing efficient, high-quality care.

Objective

To analyze the care provided by a pediatric interventional radiology clinic from the perspective of efficiency and parent satisfaction, so as to identify areas for improvement.

Materials and methods

The prospective study was both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative component measured clinic efficiency (waiting times, duration of clinic visit, nurse/physician time allocation and assessments performed; n = 91). The qualitative component assessed parental satisfaction with their experience with the pediatric interventional radiology clinic, using a questionnaire (5-point Likert scale) and optional free text section for feedback (n = 80). Questions explored the family’s perception of relevance of information provided, consent process and overall satisfaction with their pediatric interventional radiology clinic experience.

Results

Families waited a mean of 11 and 10 min to meet the physician and nurse, respectively. Nurses and physicians spent a mean of 28 and 21 min with the families, respectively. The average duration of the pediatric interventional radiology clinic consultation was 56 min. Of 80 survey participants, 83% were satisfied with their experience and 94% said they believed providing consent before the day of the procedure was helpful. Only 5% of respondents were not satisfied with the time-efficiency of the interventional radiology clinic.

Conclusion

Results show the majority of patients/parents are very satisfied with the pediatric interventional radiology clinic visit. The efficiency of the pediatric interventional radiology clinic is satisfactory; however, adherence to stricter scheduling can be improved.

Keywords

Children Clinic Interventional radiology Pediatric Satisfaction Survey 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    (2014) ACR–SIR–SPR Practice parameter for interventional clinical practice and management. ACT Res 118. http://www.acr.org/~/media/ACT/Documents/PGTS/guidelines/Interventional_Clinical_Practice.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2016
  2. 2.
    Bagla S, Mitchell NL, Sansivero GE et al (2004) The interventional radiology clinic: key ingredients for success. J Vasc Interv Radiol 15:681–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lord DJ (2011) The practice of pediatric interventional radiology. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 14:2–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baskin KM, Hogan MJ, Sidhu MK et al (2011) Developing a clinical pediatric interventional practice: a joint clinical practice guideline from the society of interventional radiology and the society for pediatric interventional radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1648–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cleary PD, McNeil BJ (1988) Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry 25:25–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sherbourne CD, Hays RD, Ordway L et al (1992) Antecedents of adherence to medical recommendations: results from the medical outcomes study. J Behav Med 15:447–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    O’Brien MK, Petrie K, Raeburn J (1992) Adherence to medication regiments: updating a complex medical issue. Med Care Rev 49:435–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anumula N, Sanelli PC (2012) Hospital outpatient quality reporting program. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33:225–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chlabicz S, Grębowski R, Marcinowicz L (2009) Patient satisfaction with healthcare provided by family doctors: primary dimensions and an attempt at typology. BMC Health Serv Res 9:63CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Detsky J, Shaul RZ (2013) Incentives to increase patient satisfaction: are we doing more harm than good? CMAJ 185:1199–1200CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cleary P (1999) The increasing importance of patient surveys. BMJ 319:720–721CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Denham C, Johnson CD, Krecke KN et al (2009) Quality initiatives: developing a radiology quality and safety program: a primer. Radiographics 29:951–959CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abujudeh H, Aran S, Quencer K et al (2013) Patient satisfaction in radiology: qualitative analysis of written complaints generated over a 10-year period in an academic medical center. J Am Coll Radiol 10:513–517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marcin JP, McSwain SD (2014) Telemedicine for the care of children in the hospital setting. Pediatr Ann 43:e44–e49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 140:1–55Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chamberlin J, Jackson JL, Kroenke K (2001) Predictors of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med 52:609–620CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bogoch ER, Cooney B, Johnston B et al (2000) Improving patient satisfaction with time spent in an orthopedic outpatient clinic. Can J Surg 43:431–436PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Calderon J, Fajardo R, Lopez C et al (2011) A telephone survey of patient satisfaction with realtime telemedicine in a rural community in Colombia. J Telemed Telecare 17:83–87CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boughner R (2010) Volunteer bias. In: Salkind N (ed) Encyclopedia of research design. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 1609–1611Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gribble R, Haupt C (2005) Quantitative and qualitative differences between handout and mailed patient satisfaction surveys. Med Care 43:276–281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Rubenstein
    • 1
    • 2
  • Julie C. Zettel
    • 1
  • Eric Lee
    • 1
  • Michelle Cote
    • 1
  • Albert Aziza
    • 1
  • Bairbre L. Connolly
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Image Guided Therapy, Diagnostic ImagingThe Hospital for Sick Children & University of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.York UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations