Observational studyPloS one2018
Interior renovation of a general practitioner office leads to a perceptual bias on patient experience for over one year.
Observational study in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMeasuring patient experience is key when assessing quality of care but can be biased: A perceptual bias occurs when renovations of the interior design of a general practitioner (GP) office improves how patients assessed quality of care. The aim was to assess the length of perceptual bias and if it could be reproduced after a second renovation.
methodsA GP office with 2 GPs in Switzerland was renovated twice within 3 years. We assessed patient experience at baseline, 2 months and 14 months after the first and 3 months after the second renovation. Each time, we invited a sample of 180 consecutive patients that anonymously graded patient experience in 4 domains: appearance of the office; qualities of medical assistants and GPs; and general satisfaction. We compared crude mean scores per domain from baseline until follow-up. In a multivariate model, we adjusted for patient's age, gender and for how long patients had been their GP.
resultsAt baseline, patients aged 60.9 (17.7) years, 52% females. After the first renovation, we found a regression to the baseline level of patient experience after 14 months except for appearance of the office (p<0.001). After the second renovation, patient experience improved again in appearance of the office (p = 0.008), qualities of the GP (p = 0.008), and general satisfaction (p = 0.014). Qualities of the medical assistant showed a slight improvement (p = 0.068). Results were unchanged in the multivariate model.
conclusionsInterior renovation of a GP office probably causes a perceptual bias for >1 year that improves how patients rate quality of care. This bias could be reproduced after a second renovation strengthening a possible causal relationship. These findings imply to appropriately time measurement of patient experience to at least one year after interior renovation of GP practices to avoid environmental changes influences the estimates when measuring patient experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.