Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 14–22 | Cite as

A new instrument for patients’ ratings of physician performance in the hospital setting

  • Dale A. Matthews
  • Alvan R. Feinstein
Original Articles

Abstract

A new instrument to elicit patients’ appraisals of physician performance has been developed from a previously-derived taxonomy of desired physician attitudes and behavior. The instrument allows patients to give ratings for their physicians’ discrete, observable items of behavior, and also for complex, multidimensional attributes. When the instrument was administered to 131 randomly chosen medical inpatients, the results showed that technical competence and interpersonal (or humanistic) qualities were equally valued, and that physicians received high ratings for most features of performance. Except for less satisfaction in younger patients, clinical and demographic characteristics had little impact on the ratings. The performance characteristics of the instrument appear satisfactory, and its potential applications and proposals for further research are discussed.

Key words

physicians patients consumer satisfaction physician-patient relations 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lain Entralgo P. Doctor and patient. Translated by Frances Partridge. New York: McGraw Hill, 1969.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Subcommittee on Evaluation of Humanistic Qualities in the Internist. American Board of Internal Medicine. Evaluation of humanistic qualities in the internist. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:720–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Project Panel on the General Professional Education of the Physician and College Preparation for Medicine. Physicians for the twenty-first century. J Med Educ 1984;59(suppl)1–200.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Francis V, Korsch BM, Morris MJ. Gaps in doctor—patient communications: patients’ responses to medical advice. N Engl J Med 1969;280:535–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Platt FW, McGrath JC. Clinical hypocompetence: the interview. Ann Intern Med 1979;91:898–902.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. A philosophical basis of medical practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peabody FW. The care of the patient. JAMA 1927;88:877–82.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davis M. Variations in patients’ compliance with doctors’ advice: an empiric analysis of patterns of communication. Am J Public Health 1968;58:274–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Comstock LM, Hooper EM, Goodwin JM, Goodwin JS. Physician behaviors that correlate with patient satisfaction. J Med Educ 1982;57:105–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zyzanski SJ, Hulka BS, Cassel JC. Scale for the measurement of “satisfaction” with medical care: modifications in content, format, and scoring. Med Care 1974;12:611–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware Jr. JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR. Development and validation of scales to measure patient satisfaction with health care services: Vol. 1 of a final report. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Services, 1976 (Publication No. PB 228-32F).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mangelsdorff AD. Patient satisfaction questionnaire. Med Care 1979;17:86–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roghmann KT, Hengst A, Zastowny TR. Satisfaction with medical care: its measurement and relation to utilization. Med Care 1979;17:461–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wolf MH, Putnam SM, James SA, Stiles WB. The medical interview satisfaction scale: development of a scale to measure patient perceptions of physician behavior. J Behav Med 1978;1:391–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith JK, Falvo D, McKillip J, Pitz G. Measuring patient perceptions of the patient—doctor interaction. Eval Health Prof 1984;7:77–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hulka BS, Zyzanski SJ. Validation of a patient satisfaction scale: theory, methods, and practice. Med Care 1982;20:649–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matthews DA, Feinstein AR. A review of systems for the personal aspects of patient care. Am J Med Sci 1988; 295:159–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 1956;63:81–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ware Jr JE. Effects of acquiescent response set on patient satisfaction ratings. Med Care 1978;16:327–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Feinstein AR. An additional basic science for clinical medicine IV. The development of clinimetrics. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:843–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dale A. Matthews
    • 1
  • Alvan R. Feinstein
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MedicineUniversity of Connecticut School of MedicineUSA
  2. 2.Clinical Epidemiology Unit and the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars ProgramYale University School of MedicineNew Haven
  3. 3.Biostatistician, Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating CenterVeterans Administration Medical CenterWest Haven

Personalised recommendations