ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Real-time Patient Experience Surveys Lead to Better Scores.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe patient satisfaction survey is a controversial fixture of modern emergency care. Patients who are satisfied are more likely to adhere to the treatment plan and less likely to pursue legal action. However, the current surveys are susceptible to recall bias. This study uses an analysis of data collected in a separate study to assess how patients rated their physicians' care when asked key questions in person by a trained volunteer versus in the Doctors section of the Press Ganey (PG) survey.
methodsThis was an analysis of prospectively collected data obtained in a separate study evaluating how patients experience their emergency care when learners are present. Trained medical student volunteers administered the survey to a convenience sample of patients slated for discharge at a single, community, tertiary-care hospital emergency department (ED) for a total of 12 weeks between June-October 2022. We compared this with the hospital's PG data for the questions on which the survey was based.
resultsA total of 625 patients were approached over the study period with 313 agreeing to participate (response rate 50.1%). There were 8,460 patients discharged from the ED during those times (overall rate 3.70%). During the contemporaneous PG study quarter, the ED received 266 responses during the shifts for which the study enrolled patients, of a total 8,460 discharged from the ED during those times (response rate 3.14%). All key questions favored the in-person survey vs mailed PG survey: "I felt informed" score 79.2 (262) vs 75.6 (265), P = .02; "I felt like my [doctor] took time to listen" 85.0 (261) vs 79.6 (266), P = .05; and "satisfaction with care team" 83.0 (263) vs 74.7 (265), P = .0013.
conclusionThis study shows higher satisfaction scores with an in-person survey. There was also a dramatically improved response rate compared with mail in PG forms, suggesting less recall bias. An absolute 5-point difference in PG score could lead to a relative 30-point change in percentile rank. This was a limited, single-site study whose results are hypothesis-generating but suggest a new pursuit for administrations seeking to improve their scores and possibly better understand patients' experience of their care.
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.