Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Dermatology

Date Submitted: Nov 23, 2019
Date Accepted: Apr 9, 2020

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Assessment of Patient Satisfaction With Dermatology Clinics According to Clinic Type: Mixed Methods Study

Costigan J, Feldman SS, Lemak M

Assessment of Patient Satisfaction With Dermatology Clinics According to Clinic Type: Mixed Methods Study

JMIR Dermatol 2020;3(1):e17171

DOI: 10.2196/17171

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Patient Satisfaction in Dermatology Clinics: Does Clinic Type Matter?

  • Jennifer Costigan; 
  • Sue S. Feldman; 
  • Mark Lemak

ABSTRACT

Background:

Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey responses are considered significant indicators of quality of care and patient satisfaction. A pressing need to improve patient satisfaction rates is significant as the CAHPS survey responses are also a factor in determining the amount a facility will be reimbursed by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid each year. Low overall CAHPS scores for an academic medical center’s dermatology clinics were anecdotally attributed to clinic type. Was it really clinic type that was contributing to low scores, or were there other factors?

Objective:

Determine to what degree patient satisfaction scores at the private dermatology clinic differ from the scores at the rapid access dermatology clinic

Methods:

This study consisted of descriptive quantitative and qualitative methods. Secondary data derived from the academic medical center’s Press Ganey website was analyzed for clinic type comparisons and unstructured data were qualitatively analyzed to further enrich the quantitative findings. The data were analyzed to determine the contributors responsible for each clinic not meeting national benchmarks. Then, a review of these contributing factors were further analyzed to determine the difference in CAHPS scores between the private and rapid access dermatology clinics to determine if clinic type was a contributing factor to the overall contributing factors. The data sample included 821 responses from May 2017-May 2018.

Results:

Overall, when both private clinics and rapid access clinics were viewed collectively, a majority of the patients reported stewardship of patient resources as the most poorly rated factor and physician communication quality as the most positively rated factor. However, when private clinics and rapid access clinics were viewed individually, the rapid access clinics contributed slightly to overall lower dermatology scores at this academic medical center.

Conclusions:

This study determined different factors were responsible for lower CAHPS scores for two different dermatology clinics. Some of the contributing factors are a result of the mission of the clinic. It was suspected that the mission had not been properly communicated to patients, leading to misaligned expectations of care at each clinic. Several recommendations for level-setting expectations are provided in this paper.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Costigan J, Feldman SS, Lemak M

Assessment of Patient Satisfaction With Dermatology Clinics According to Clinic Type: Mixed Methods Study

JMIR Dermatol 2020;3(1):e17171

DOI: 10.2196/17171

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.