{"title":"Patient satisfaction.","authors":"Gillian A. Corbett, T. McGuigan","doi":"10.1002/9781119057840.ch90","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To the Editor: In their survey of patient satisfaction with intravenous PCA or epidural morphine, Egan and Ready conclude that satisfaction is very high with both modalities, but the perceived advantages and disadvantages differ, t While I share the authors' enthusiasm for both techniques, I feel there are some methodological concerns which may limit the validity of the conclusions. The authors reported differences between the two patient groups with respect to advantages, disadvantages and patient satisfaction. I question if such comparisons are valid when the demographics of the two groups studied are so clearly different; the PCA group was, on average, nine years younger than the epidural group, and presumably represented a different case mix. Although not reported, it is reasonable to assume that the patients undergoing more serious surgery were also more likely to receive epidural narcotics postoperatively. Within each group the authors have identified relative advantages and disadvantages perceived by the patients. However, on the basis of the very considerable demographic differences, I would argue that no valid between-group comparisons of PCA versus epidural narcotics are possible. The authors also state that\" ... patients converted from one form of therapy to the other for any reason were excluded.\" This would seem to bias the reported satisfaction scores, since the only obvious reason for a change in therapy is patient or physician dissatisfaction. It would be useful to know how often this occurred. Quite tightly, Egan and Ready point out that, \"Although patients willingly offer (satisfaction) ratings, it is by no means clear what such ratings represent.\" This is further illustrated in a randomized prospective study of PCA versus im morphine in patients following hip arthroplasty. 2 In both groups, the patients reported satisfaction scores of approximately nine out of ten, yet pain control assessed using visual analogue scores for both intensity and distress was often inadequate. In fact, the highest satisfaction score was coincident with the worst reported pain. Barring the most egregious errors, one suspects that if your patient likes you, reported satisfaction will be high.","PeriodicalId":94315,"journal":{"name":"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association","volume":"6 1","pages":"26-35"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057840.ch90","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
To the Editor: In their survey of patient satisfaction with intravenous PCA or epidural morphine, Egan and Ready conclude that satisfaction is very high with both modalities, but the perceived advantages and disadvantages differ, t While I share the authors' enthusiasm for both techniques, I feel there are some methodological concerns which may limit the validity of the conclusions. The authors reported differences between the two patient groups with respect to advantages, disadvantages and patient satisfaction. I question if such comparisons are valid when the demographics of the two groups studied are so clearly different; the PCA group was, on average, nine years younger than the epidural group, and presumably represented a different case mix. Although not reported, it is reasonable to assume that the patients undergoing more serious surgery were also more likely to receive epidural narcotics postoperatively. Within each group the authors have identified relative advantages and disadvantages perceived by the patients. However, on the basis of the very considerable demographic differences, I would argue that no valid between-group comparisons of PCA versus epidural narcotics are possible. The authors also state that" ... patients converted from one form of therapy to the other for any reason were excluded." This would seem to bias the reported satisfaction scores, since the only obvious reason for a change in therapy is patient or physician dissatisfaction. It would be useful to know how often this occurred. Quite tightly, Egan and Ready point out that, "Although patients willingly offer (satisfaction) ratings, it is by no means clear what such ratings represent." This is further illustrated in a randomized prospective study of PCA versus im morphine in patients following hip arthroplasty. 2 In both groups, the patients reported satisfaction scores of approximately nine out of ten, yet pain control assessed using visual analogue scores for both intensity and distress was often inadequate. In fact, the highest satisfaction score was coincident with the worst reported pain. Barring the most egregious errors, one suspects that if your patient likes you, reported satisfaction will be high.