首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Journal of Healthcare Leadership >Does physician engagement affect satisfaction of patients or resident physicians?
【2h】

Does physician engagement affect satisfaction of patients or resident physicians?

机译:医师参与会影响患者或住院医师的满意度吗?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Purpose: This study examined whether change in physician engagement affected outpatient or resident physician satisfaction using common US measures.>Methods: Surveys were administered by Advisory Board Survey Solutions for staff physician engagement, Press Ganey for Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CGCAHPS) for outpatient satisfaction, and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) for the ACGME Resident/Fellow Survey. Survey sample sizes were 685, 697, and 763 for physician engagement and 621, 625, and 618 for resident satisfaction in 2014–2016, respectively; only respondents were available for CGCAHPS (24,302, 34,328, and 43,100 for 2014–2016, respectively). Two groups were analyzed across 3 years: (1) percentage of “engaged” staff physicians versus percentage of outpatient top box scores for physician communication, and (2) percentage of “engaged” staff physicians versus percentage of residents “positive” on program evaluation. For resident evaluation of faculty, the number of programs that met/exceeded ACGME national compliance scores were compared. Univariate chi-squared tests compared data between 2014, 2015, and 2016.>Results: For 2014–2016, “engaged” physicians increased from 34% (169/497) to 44% (227/515) to 48% (260/542) (P<0.001) whereas CGCAHPS top box scores for physician communication remained unchanged at 90.9% (22,091/24,302), 90.8% (31,088/34,328), and 90.9% (39,178/43,100) (P=0.869). For the second group, “engaged” physicians increased from 33% (204/617) to 46% (318/692) to 50% (351/701) (P<0.001) and residents “positive” on program evaluation increased from 86% (534/618) in 2014 to 89% (556/624) in 2015 and 89% (550/615) in 2016 (P=0.174). The number of specialties that met/exceeded national compliance for all five faculty evaluation items grew from 44% (11/25) in 2014 to 68% (17/25) in 2015 and 64% (16/25) in 2016 (P=0.182).>Conclusion: For our medical group, improvement in physician engagement across time did not coincide with meaningful change in the outpatient experience with physician communication or resident satisfaction with program and faculty.
机译:>目的:该研究使用美国常见的措施检查了医师敬业度的变化是否会影响门诊或住院医师的满意度。>方法:调查是由咨询委员会调查解决方案针对员工医师敬业度进行的,对于医疗服务提供商和系统的临床医生和团体消费者评估(CGCAHPS),Ganey负责提高门诊患者的满意度;对于ACGME居民/研究员调查,负责研究生医学教育的认可委员会(ACGME)。 2014-2016年,针对医生聘用的调查样本量分别为685、697和763,针对居民满意度的调查样本量分别为621、625和618;只有受访者可以使用CGCAHPS(2014-2016年分别为24,302、34,328和43,100)。在三年中对两组进行了分析:(1)“参与”员工医师的百分比与门诊医师沟通的门诊最高评分的百分比,以及(2)“参与”员工医师的百分比与计划评估中居民“积极”的百分比。为了对教师进行居民评估,比较了达到/超过ACGME国家合规分数的课程数量。单变量卡方检验比较了2014年,2015年和2016年之间的数据。>结果:对于2014-2016年,“从事”的医师从34%(169/497)增至44%(227/515)达到48%(260/542)(P <0.001),而医师沟通的CGCAHPS最高评分保持不变,分别为90.9%(22,091 / 24,302),90.8%(31,088 / 34,328)和90.9%(39,178 / 43,100)(P = 0.869)。对于第二组,“参与”医生从33%(204/617)增至46%(318/692)增至50%(351/701)(P <0.001),并且居民对计划评估的“积极”从86%增加2014年的百分比(534/618)至2015年的89%(556/624)和2016年的89%(550/615)(P = 0.174)。所有五个教师评估项目达到/超过国家合规要求的专业数量从2014年的44%(11/25)增至2015年的68%(17/25)和2016年的64%(16/25)(P = 0.182)。>结论:对于我们的医疗组,跨时医生参与度的提高与门诊患者对医生沟通的经验或住院医师对计划和教职人员满意度的有意义的改变并不吻合。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号