ArticleBMJ open quality2019
Quantifying patient satisfaction with process metrics using a weighted bundle approach.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From local change to scholarly contribution: lessons from a scoping review of the gaps and pitfalls of QI reports.BMJ open quality · 2026Article
- Quality improvement initiative to improve communication domains of patient satisfaction in a regional community hospital with Six Sigma methodology.BMJ open quality · 2023Article
- Using Lean Six Sigma in a Private Hospital Setting to Reduce Trauma Orthopedic Patient Waiting Times and Associated Administrative and Consultant Caseload.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- An analysis of physician reviews in relation to quality and social media presence.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2022Article
- Using Lean Six Sigma to Redesign the Supply Chain to the Operating Room Department of a Private Hospital to Reduce Associated Costs and Release Nursing Time to Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Current patient satisfaction assessment results are delayed and obtained from select patient surveys. As a result, these assessments may not represent the experience of the entire patient population. This study developed a method to measure and evaluate all patients' experiences while they are within the care episode and link it to processes within the organisation. Methods: Using the Six Sigma methodology, sites assembled diverse teams to categorise and analyse negative experience comments from patients to understand the drivers of dissatisfaction. These customer expectations lead to the development of the four components in the Patient Experience Bundle (PEB): communication, environment, basic needs/comfort and logistics. Individual process elements were ranked to create a numerical relationship between service and the needs expressed by the voice of the customer. Sites created surveys incorporating questions that focused on the bundle elements and measured daily bundle compliance. Graphical analysis and hypothesis testing enabled sites to determine key drivers of patient dissatisfaction within the bundle elements. Improvement strategies were developed and implemented to address the key drivers of patient dissatisfaction. Results: After implementing process improvements focused on issues identified by the PEB, bundle compliance improved from an average of 51% to an average of 82.5% and Press Ganey Likelihood to Recommend (PG LTR) scores improved from an average of 64.73% to an average 74.64%. The data demonstrated that the trends in improving PEB are followed by meaningful changes in PG LTR scores. Conclusion: This work is built on the identification of common elements of care that impact patient satisfaction and detailed mathematical analysis of the relationship between factors. Using the bundle concept, these improvement efforts maintain highly reliable processes to drive outcomes and provide real-time feedback on 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.