净启动子评分(NPS)在门诊过敏和肺部诊所的使用:使用Tablet-Based工具与传统调查方法的创新研究

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Patient Related Outcome Measures Pub Date : 2020-05-19 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.2147/PROM.S248431
Abdullah Alismail, Brett Schaeffer, Andrea Oh, Saba Hamiduzzaman, Noha Daher, Hae-Young Song, Brian Furukawa, Laren D Tan
{"title":"净启动子评分(NPS)在门诊过敏和肺部诊所的使用:使用Tablet-Based工具与传统调查方法的创新研究","authors":"Abdullah Alismail,&nbsp;Brett Schaeffer,&nbsp;Andrea Oh,&nbsp;Saba Hamiduzzaman,&nbsp;Noha Daher,&nbsp;Hae-Young Song,&nbsp;Brian Furukawa,&nbsp;Laren D Tan","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S248431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient satisfaction has become an essential metric in addition to the type of care they receive. Phone calls, emails, and text to patients after their healthcare visit are the typical way of obtaining the data reflecting patient satisfaction. The purpose of this retrospective quality improvement study is to compare the traditional post-outpatient clinic survey method with an onsite concise two-question survey using a tablet method immediately after the patient visit using Net Promoter Score (NPS) questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected retrospectively from February to August 2018 from an outpatient subspecialty clinic in southern California using an existing database from two different sources: the traditional method (TM) and the tablet-based tool (TBT), using NPS. The TM data were obtained from a third-party company using two questions via phone, email, and text collected 2-4 weeks after the patient's visit. The TBT has only two questions that were given to patients upon their visit check-out. These two questions assessed both provider and clinic's performance using the NPS method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, there were 1708 patients seen from February to August 2018. In the TM, the total outgoing messages during this period were 580 (34.0%) with 156 responses (27%). In the TBT, 648 out of 1708 (37.9%) surveys were collected with a 100% response rate. The NPS score showed that 99.2% of the providers were promoters. The NPS score for the clinic was 96% which reflects a promoter score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that when using the TBT immediately after their visit to the clinic, a higher response rate was noted. In addition, both methods had similar outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction NPS scores. Future prospective studies with a larger sample size are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of the TBT tool in assessing patient satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":"11 ","pages":"137-142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/PROM.S248431","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) in an Outpatient Allergy and Pulmonary Clinic: An Innovative Look into Using Tablet-Based Tool vs Traditional Survey Method.\",\"authors\":\"Abdullah Alismail,&nbsp;Brett Schaeffer,&nbsp;Andrea Oh,&nbsp;Saba Hamiduzzaman,&nbsp;Noha Daher,&nbsp;Hae-Young Song,&nbsp;Brian Furukawa,&nbsp;Laren D Tan\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PROM.S248431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patient satisfaction has become an essential metric in addition to the type of care they receive. Phone calls, emails, and text to patients after their healthcare visit are the typical way of obtaining the data reflecting patient satisfaction. The purpose of this retrospective quality improvement study is to compare the traditional post-outpatient clinic survey method with an onsite concise two-question survey using a tablet method immediately after the patient visit using Net Promoter Score (NPS) questions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were collected retrospectively from February to August 2018 from an outpatient subspecialty clinic in southern California using an existing database from two different sources: the traditional method (TM) and the tablet-based tool (TBT), using NPS. The TM data were obtained from a third-party company using two questions via phone, email, and text collected 2-4 weeks after the patient's visit. The TBT has only two questions that were given to patients upon their visit check-out. These two questions assessed both provider and clinic's performance using the NPS method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, there were 1708 patients seen from February to August 2018. In the TM, the total outgoing messages during this period were 580 (34.0%) with 156 responses (27%). In the TBT, 648 out of 1708 (37.9%) surveys were collected with a 100% response rate. The NPS score showed that 99.2% of the providers were promoters. The NPS score for the clinic was 96% which reflects a promoter score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our results indicate that when using the TBT immediately after their visit to the clinic, a higher response rate was noted. In addition, both methods had similar outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction NPS scores. Future prospective studies with a larger sample size are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of the TBT tool in assessing patient satisfaction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"137-142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2147/PROM.S248431\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S248431\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S248431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

导言:患者满意度已成为一个重要的指标,除了类型的护理,他们接受。在医疗保健访问后给患者打电话、发电子邮件和发短信是获得反映患者满意度的数据的典型方式。本回顾性质量改善研究的目的是比较传统的门诊后临床调查方法与现场简明的两题调查方法,该调查采用片剂法,在患者就诊后立即使用净推荐值(NPS)问题。方法:回顾性收集2018年2月至8月南加州一家门诊亚专科诊所的数据,使用来自两种不同来源的现有数据库:传统方法(TM)和基于片剂的工具(TBT),使用NPS。TM数据从third-party公司获得,在患者就诊2-4周后通过电话、电子邮件和短信收集两个问题。TBT只有两个问题,是在病人出诊时问的。这两个问题使用NPS方法评估了提供者和诊所的绩效。结果:2018年2 - 8月共收治患者1708例。在TM中,这段时间的总出站信息为580条(34.0%),回复156条(27%)。在TBT中,收集了1708份调查中的648份(37.9%),回复率为100%。NPS评分显示,99.2%的提供者是推广者。该诊所的NPS得分为96%,反映了启动子得分。结论:我们的研究结果表明,在他们就诊后立即使用TBT,注意到更高的反应率。此外,两种方法在患者满意度NPS评分方面的结果相似。未来的前瞻性研究需要更大的样本量来评估TBT工具在评估患者满意度方面的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) in an Outpatient Allergy and Pulmonary Clinic: An Innovative Look into Using Tablet-Based Tool vs Traditional Survey Method.

The Use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) in an Outpatient Allergy and Pulmonary Clinic: An Innovative Look into Using Tablet-Based Tool vs Traditional Survey Method.

The Use of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) in an Outpatient Allergy and Pulmonary Clinic: An Innovative Look into Using Tablet-Based Tool vs Traditional Survey Method.

Introduction: Patient satisfaction has become an essential metric in addition to the type of care they receive. Phone calls, emails, and text to patients after their healthcare visit are the typical way of obtaining the data reflecting patient satisfaction. The purpose of this retrospective quality improvement study is to compare the traditional post-outpatient clinic survey method with an onsite concise two-question survey using a tablet method immediately after the patient visit using Net Promoter Score (NPS) questions.

Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from February to August 2018 from an outpatient subspecialty clinic in southern California using an existing database from two different sources: the traditional method (TM) and the tablet-based tool (TBT), using NPS. The TM data were obtained from a third-party company using two questions via phone, email, and text collected 2-4 weeks after the patient's visit. The TBT has only two questions that were given to patients upon their visit check-out. These two questions assessed both provider and clinic's performance using the NPS method.

Results: In total, there were 1708 patients seen from February to August 2018. In the TM, the total outgoing messages during this period were 580 (34.0%) with 156 responses (27%). In the TBT, 648 out of 1708 (37.9%) surveys were collected with a 100% response rate. The NPS score showed that 99.2% of the providers were promoters. The NPS score for the clinic was 96% which reflects a promoter score.

Conclusion: Our results indicate that when using the TBT immediately after their visit to the clinic, a higher response rate was noted. In addition, both methods had similar outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction NPS scores. Future prospective studies with a larger sample size are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of the TBT tool in assessing patient satisfaction.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信