Cargando…

Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department

Patient satisfaction most be a priority in emergency departments (EDs). The care provided by residents forms much of the patient contact in academic EDs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if monetary incentives for emergency medicine (EM) residents improve patient satisfaction scores on a mailed survey. METHO...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Langdorf, Mark I., Kazzi, A. Antoine, Marwah, Rakesh S., Bauche, John
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: California Chapter of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine 2005
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2906978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847860
_version_ 1782184066697658368
author Langdorf, Mark I.
Kazzi, A. Antoine
Marwah, Rakesh S.
Bauche, John
author_facet Langdorf, Mark I.
Kazzi, A. Antoine
Marwah, Rakesh S.
Bauche, John
author_sort Langdorf, Mark I.
collection PubMed
description Patient satisfaction most be a priority in emergency departments (EDs). The care provided by residents forms much of the patient contact in academic EDs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if monetary incentives for emergency medicine (EM) residents improve patient satisfaction scores on a mailed survey. METHODS: The incentive program ran for nine months, 1999–2000. Press-Ganey surveys responses from ED patients in 456 hospitals; 124 form a peer group of larger, teaching hospitals. Questions relate to: 1) waiting time, 2) taking the problem seriously, 3) treatment information, 4) home care concerns, 5) doctor’s courtesy, and 6) concern with comfort. A 5-point Likert scale ranges from “very poor” (0 points) to “very good” (100). Raw score is the weighted mean, converted to a percentile vs. the peer group. Incentives were three-fold: a year-end event for the EM residents if 80th percentile results were achieved; individual incentives for educational materials of $50/resident (50th percentile), $100 (60th), $150 (70th), or $200 (80th); discount cards for the hospital’s espresso cart. These were distributed by 11 EM faculty (six cards/month) as rewards for outstanding interactions. Program cost was <$8,000, from patient-care revenue. Faculty had similar direct incentives, but nursing and staff incentives were ill defined and indirect. RESULTS: Raw scores ranged from 66.1 (waiting time) to 84.3 (doctor’s courtesy) (n=509 or ∼7.2% of ED volume). Corresponding percentiles were 20th–43rd (mean=31st). We found no difference between the overall scores after the incentives, but three of the six questions showed improvement, with one, “doctors’ courtesy,” reaching 53(rd) percentile. The faculty funded the 50(th) percentile reward. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives are a novel idea to improve patient satisfaction, but did not foster overall Press-Ganey score improvement. We did find a trend toward improvement for doctor-patient interaction scores. Confounding variables, such as increasing patient census, could account for inability to demonstrate a positive effect.
format Text
id pubmed-2906978
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2005
publisher California Chapter of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-29069782010-09-16 Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department Langdorf, Mark I. Kazzi, A. Antoine Marwah, Rakesh S. Bauche, John Cal J Emerg Med Original Research Patient satisfaction most be a priority in emergency departments (EDs). The care provided by residents forms much of the patient contact in academic EDs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if monetary incentives for emergency medicine (EM) residents improve patient satisfaction scores on a mailed survey. METHODS: The incentive program ran for nine months, 1999–2000. Press-Ganey surveys responses from ED patients in 456 hospitals; 124 form a peer group of larger, teaching hospitals. Questions relate to: 1) waiting time, 2) taking the problem seriously, 3) treatment information, 4) home care concerns, 5) doctor’s courtesy, and 6) concern with comfort. A 5-point Likert scale ranges from “very poor” (0 points) to “very good” (100). Raw score is the weighted mean, converted to a percentile vs. the peer group. Incentives were three-fold: a year-end event for the EM residents if 80th percentile results were achieved; individual incentives for educational materials of $50/resident (50th percentile), $100 (60th), $150 (70th), or $200 (80th); discount cards for the hospital’s espresso cart. These were distributed by 11 EM faculty (six cards/month) as rewards for outstanding interactions. Program cost was <$8,000, from patient-care revenue. Faculty had similar direct incentives, but nursing and staff incentives were ill defined and indirect. RESULTS: Raw scores ranged from 66.1 (waiting time) to 84.3 (doctor’s courtesy) (n=509 or ∼7.2% of ED volume). Corresponding percentiles were 20th–43rd (mean=31st). We found no difference between the overall scores after the incentives, but three of the six questions showed improvement, with one, “doctors’ courtesy,” reaching 53(rd) percentile. The faculty funded the 50(th) percentile reward. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives are a novel idea to improve patient satisfaction, but did not foster overall Press-Ganey score improvement. We did find a trend toward improvement for doctor-patient interaction scores. Confounding variables, such as increasing patient census, could account for inability to demonstrate a positive effect. California Chapter of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine 2005 /pmc/articles/PMC2906978/ /pubmed/20847860 Text en Copyright © 2005 the authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research
Langdorf, Mark I.
Kazzi, A. Antoine
Marwah, Rakesh S.
Bauche, John
Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department
title Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department
title_full Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department
title_fullStr Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department
title_full_unstemmed Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department
title_short Monetary Resident Incentives: Effect on Patient Satisfaction in an Academic Emergency Department
title_sort monetary resident incentives: effect on patient satisfaction in an academic emergency department
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2906978/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847860
work_keys_str_mv AT langdorfmarki monetaryresidentincentiveseffectonpatientsatisfactioninanacademicemergencydepartment
AT kazziaantoine monetaryresidentincentiveseffectonpatientsatisfactioninanacademicemergencydepartment
AT marwahrakeshs monetaryresidentincentiveseffectonpatientsatisfactioninanacademicemergencydepartment
AT bauchejohn monetaryresidentincentiveseffectonpatientsatisfactioninanacademicemergencydepartment