ArticleCureus2025
Emergency Physician Perspectives on the Use of Patient Experience Surveys.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Although emergency medicine specialty societies have published policy statements on the use of patient experience data, we know little about how these data are currently used within physician groups. We also have little information about individual emergency physicians' perspectives on the use of these data. Methods A total of 1049 questionnaires were distributed via email to residency program alumni of a large Midwestern residency program in June-July 2024. Participants were asked questions regarding their time in practice since residency, practice setting, and their current group or employer's use of emergency department (ED) patient experience feedback. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables, and a logistic regression was performed to determine associations between respondent sex and years in practice with the odds of perceiving the use of experience ratings as fair. Finally, open-ended responses were reviewed thematically to identify common patterns. Results From a distribution to 1049 individuals, there were 99 (9.4%) responses. A total of 33 (33.3%) respondents made free-response comments. The most common uses of data were the publication of group performance and individual emails to physicians regarding patient feedback. Financial incentives were more common at the group level than at the individual level. Female physicians had lower odds of perceiving use of the ratings as fair. In addition, physicians raised concerns in free response comments about gender and racial bias, sample size and distribution of surveys, and the relevance of factors outside of physician control. Conclusion Emergency physicians held relatively neutral positions on whether the current use of experience data was reasonable. However, they had numerous concerns regarding the data quality.
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.