Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36225500›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Patient Experience Ratings: What Do Breast Surgery Patients Care About?

Betty Fan, Folasade Imeokparia, Kandice Ludwig, Lisa Korff, Joanna Hunter-Squires, Bindhupriya Chandrasekaran, Sandeep Samra, Joshua Manghelli, Carla Fisher

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Betty FanSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Folasade ImeokpariaSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Kandice LudwigSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Lisa KorffSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Joanna Hunter-SquiresSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Bindhupriya ChandrasekaranSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Sandeep SamraPatient Experience, Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, USA.
Joshua ManghelliSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Carla FisherSurgical Oncology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
Indiana University Health · USIndiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Patient experience is essential in the overall care; physicians often receive patient reviews evaluating their consultation encounters. Patient experience surveys can be a helpful tool to identify areas to target for improvement. We sought to evaluate what factors influenced breast surgery patients' reviews of their clinic visits. Methods Prospective surveys from 2018-2020 were reviewed from a single institution. Surveys were sent to all patients within 48 hours after visiting one of our breast surgery clinics, and patients were asked their preferred mode of contact for the survey. Patients responded to surveys with scores of 0-10, with 0 as "not likely" and 10 "extremely likely" to recommend the provider's office. Scores 0-6 were considered negative, 7-8 neutral, and 9-10 positive. Positive/Negative comments from patients were reviewed and classified according to mention of surgeon, clinic staff/team, clinic processing, and facility amenities. Results 744 out of 2205 patients contacted responded to the survey, resulting in a 33.7% response rate. Of this cohort, 47.6% (354/744) were new patients, and 52.4% (390/744) were established patients. Interactive voice response (IVR) and email, per patient indicated preferred mode of survey communication, had the highest responses. The average patient score was 9.5. Most ratings were positive (91.3%, 679/744), followed by neutral comments (5.2%, 39/744). There were 3.5% (26/744) which were negative ratings. Of those who responded, 47.7% (355/744) left a comment with their score. Surgeon-specific remarks were often noted in positive comments, followed by clinic staff/team comments. Negative comments most commonly referenced clinic processes. Conclusion Patient satisfaction surveys provide a window into creating the best patient experience. Further efforts to address these factors affecting patient experiences should be made to continue improving patient care.

Indexed as

breast cancer outcomesgeneral surgery and breast cancerpatient reported experiencepatient’s satisfactionquality improvement projects

Identifiers

PMID36225500
PMCPMC9536514
OpenAlexW4294796148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.