Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32547281›Full record

ArticlePatient related outcome measures2020

The Use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) in an Outpatient Allergy and Pulmonary Clinic: An Innovative Look into Using Tablet-Based Tool vs Traditional Survey Method.

Abdullah Alismail, Brett Schaeffer, Andrea Oh, Saba Hamiduzzaman, Noha Daher, Hae-Young Song, Brian Furukawa, Laren D Tan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient related outcome measures, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The ultimate question? Evaluating the use of Net Promoter Score in healthcare: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abdullah Alismail *Department of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7844-8943
Brett Schaeffer *Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0784-9141
Andrea OhDepartment of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Saba HamiduzzamanDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Hyperbaric, Allergy and Sleep Medicine, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9409-1083
Noha DaherDepartment of Allied Health Studies, School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5429-3297
Hae-Young SongDepartment of Medicine, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9700-9460
Brian FurukawaDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care, Hyperbaric, Allergy and Sleep Medicine, Loma Linda University Health, Loma Linda, CA, USA.
Laren D TanDepartment of Cardiopulmonary Sciences, School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1974-1250
Loma Linda University · USLoma Linda University Children's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient satisfaction has become an essential metric in addition to the type of care they receive. Phone calls, emails, and text to patients after their healthcare visit are the typical way of obtaining the data reflecting patient satisfaction. The purpose of this retrospective quality improvement study is to compare the traditional post-outpatient clinic survey method with an onsite concise two-question survey using a tablet method immediately after the patient visit using Net Promoter Score (NPS) questions.

methodsData were collected retrospectively from February to August 2018 from an outpatient subspecialty clinic in southern California using an existing database from two different sources: the traditional method (TM) and the tablet-based tool (TBT), using NPS. The TM data were obtained from a third-party company using two questions via phone, email, and text collected 2-4 weeks after the patient's visit. The TBT has only two questions that were given to patients upon their visit check-out. These two questions assessed both provider and clinic's performance using the NPS method.

resultsIn total, there were 1708 patients seen from February to August 2018. In the TM, the total outgoing messages during this period were 580 (34.0%) with 156 responses (27%). In the TBT, 648 out of 1708 (37.9%) surveys were collected with a 100% response rate. The NPS score showed that 99.2% of the providers were promoters. The NPS score for the clinic was 96% which reflects a promoter score.

conclusionOur results indicate that when using the TBT immediately after their visit to the clinic, a higher response rate was noted. In addition, both methods had similar outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction NPS scores. Future prospective studies with a larger sample size are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of the TBT tool in assessing patient satisfaction.

Indexed as

Net Promoter ScoreNPSpatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID32547281
PMCPMC7245467
OpenAlexW3169551803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.