ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma
Novel approach to improve patient satisfaction in the outpatient clinic setting.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Satisfaction With a One-Stop Service Center in a Tertiary Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Influence of Risk of Drug⁻Drug Interactions and Time Availability on Patient Trust, Satisfaction, and Cooperation with Clinical Pharmacists.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith evolving reimbursement patterns and an emphasis on value-based care, patient satisfaction is increasingly becoming a more important metric. However, there remains a dearth of literature examining potential strategies to improve patient satisfaction in the outpatient setting. This study investigates if overall perception of care is influenced by providing biosketch cards to new patients in an outpatient Sports Medicine clinic.
methods144 new patients were assigned to an intervention group based on the date of visit from 3/2017 to 8/2017. Eligible patients received a treating physician biosketch card (Group A), clinical practice biosketch card (Group B) or no additional literature (Control group) during the clinic check-out process. Via email, patients were asked to rate: 1- quality of care, 2- treated with courtesy and respect, 3- listened to carefully, 4- was explained things in a way you could understand, 5- overall rating, 6- recommend to family and friend? We also collected age, gender, level of education, and response time. The three groups were compared.
results96 (66.7%) patients responded with 32 patients in each group (physician biosketch, clinic biosketch, no intervention). There were no significant demographic differences between the groups. The average age was 51.8 years with 52% being male. Mean time from visit to response was 1.6 days. The only significant difference occurred for rating "how would you rate your orthopedic doctor with treating you with courtesy and respect?", however, post hoc analysis failed to reveal a significant difference in response between each study group. There was no statistical difference between the remaining questions on patient satisfaction.
conclusionIncreasing a new patient's awareness, via physician or clinic information sheets, has no added benefit for patient satisfaction in the outpatient sports medicine setting.
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.