Relationship Of Press Ganey® Satisfaction and Promis Function and Pain in Foot and Ankle Patients

CATEGORY: Other INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE: Patient satisfaction has garnered interest as a tool to measure healthcare quality. The Press Ganey (PG) instrument was designed to assess outpatient patient satisfaction by probing multiple domains of the patient experience including clinic wait-times and overall assessment of the provider practice. However, orthopaedic studies in total joint arthroplasty, spine, and hand patients have offered conflicting relationships between PG satisfaction metrics and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. No prior study has assessed the relationship between PG and PROs in foot and ankle patients. Here, we tested if there was an association between PROMIS outcomes and PG satisfaction scores. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, new patient visits to orthopedic foot and ankle clinics at a single academic center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients that completed PG satisfaction surveys were included for study. All patients who completed PG surveys had completed either one or both of the PROMIS physical function (PF) or pain interference (PI) metrics administered by computerized adaptive testing. Negative binomial regressions were used to compare PRO scores to PG overall satisfaction and PG satisfaction with care provider, adjusting for patient characteristics. Results were reported as dissatisfaction score ratios along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. RESULTS: Out of 3,984 new patient visits, only 441 completed the PG survey (11.3% response rate). Ceiling effects were seen with PG data as 64% of our patients reported perfect satisfaction with care provider and 27% had perfect overall satisfaction. Higher function on the PROMIS PF was weakly associated with increased overall satisfaction (Ratio=0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99, P=0.039) and increased satisfaction with care provider (Ratio=0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92, P=0.019). However, pain (PROMIS PI) was not associated with overall satisfaction or with satisfaction with care provider. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction was weakly related to patient-reported function but not pain among new foot and ankle clinic patients. It appears from our data that PG and PROMIS measure differing components of patient care. Further, our findings showcase the limitations of the PG tool including low response rates and notable ceiling effects. Until we achieve a broader understanding of the relationship between patient satisfaction and clinical and surgical outcomes, we would caution against the use of PG data in the assessment of quality of care and reimbursement for orthopaedic foot and ankle surgery.