主动反馈与被动反馈评价患者满意度的比较。

Manju Christopher, Lallu Joseph
{"title":"主动反馈与被动反馈评价患者满意度的比较。","authors":"Manju Christopher,&nbsp;Lallu Joseph","doi":"10.36401/JQSH-20-36","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The outpatient department of any hospital is the first direct point of contact to the patients with the hospital. To understand the difficulties faced by the patients and to understand their perceptions, it is important to assess patient satisfaction. This study was designed to compare the difference in patient satisfaction responses and outcomes using two methods: active feedback collection (AFC) and passive feedback collection (PFC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted for a period of 2 months using a validated, structured questionnaire in four languages. To differentiate the questionnaires, those for PFC were marked <i>P</i> and those for AFC as <i>A</i>. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions. PFC was obtained when patients voluntarily filled out the feedback forms placed at different locations, and AFC was obtained by systematically approaching randomly selected patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 809 patients who participated in the study, 131 were passive and 678 active. The study revealed that the satisfaction level was higher in the AFC group. It was observed that 82% of those in the PFC group and 35% of those in the AFC group had given specific written comments. The negative comments were higher in the PFC group than in the AFC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AFC method gives a good overview of the patients' journeys through the system and it can be used for systemic feedback collection. The PFC method provides an avenue to get more written suggestions and adverse comments that could help in planning remedial measures. The study showed that both methods collect complementary information for the managers to facilitate improvement of services.</p>","PeriodicalId":73170,"journal":{"name":"Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10228992/pdf/i2589-9449-4-3-105.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Assessment of Patient Satisfaction Using Active and Passive Feedback.\",\"authors\":\"Manju Christopher,&nbsp;Lallu Joseph\",\"doi\":\"10.36401/JQSH-20-36\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The outpatient department of any hospital is the first direct point of contact to the patients with the hospital. To understand the difficulties faced by the patients and to understand their perceptions, it is important to assess patient satisfaction. This study was designed to compare the difference in patient satisfaction responses and outcomes using two methods: active feedback collection (AFC) and passive feedback collection (PFC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted for a period of 2 months using a validated, structured questionnaire in four languages. To differentiate the questionnaires, those for PFC were marked <i>P</i> and those for AFC as <i>A</i>. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions. PFC was obtained when patients voluntarily filled out the feedback forms placed at different locations, and AFC was obtained by systematically approaching randomly selected patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 809 patients who participated in the study, 131 were passive and 678 active. The study revealed that the satisfaction level was higher in the AFC group. It was observed that 82% of those in the PFC group and 35% of those in the AFC group had given specific written comments. The negative comments were higher in the PFC group than in the AFC group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The AFC method gives a good overview of the patients' journeys through the system and it can be used for systemic feedback collection. The PFC method provides an avenue to get more written suggestions and adverse comments that could help in planning remedial measures. The study showed that both methods collect complementary information for the managers to facilitate improvement of services.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73170,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10228992/pdf/i2589-9449-4-3-105.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36401/JQSH-20-36\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global journal on quality and safety in healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36401/JQSH-20-36","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

导读:任何医院的门诊部都是患者与医院的第一个直接接触点。要了解患者面临的困难,了解他们的看法,评估患者满意度是很重要的。本研究旨在比较采用主动反馈收集(AFC)和被动反馈收集(PFC)两种方法的患者满意度反应和结果的差异。方法:本研究使用四种语言的有效结构化问卷进行为期2个月的研究。为了区分问卷,PFC问卷标记为P, AFC问卷标记为a。问卷共有21个问题。PFC是由患者自愿填写放置在不同位置的反馈表获得的,AFC是通过系统地接近随机选择的患者获得的。结果:809名参与研究的患者中,131名是被动的,678名是主动的。研究显示,AFC组的满意度更高。观察到,PFC组中82%的患者和AFC组中35%的患者给出了具体的书面评论。PFC组的负面评价高于AFC组。结论:AFC方法可以很好地概述患者通过系统的旅程,并可用于系统反馈收集。PFC方法提供了获得更多书面建议和不利意见的途径,有助于规划补救措施。研究表明,两种方法都收集了互补的信息,便于管理者改进服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Assessment of Patient Satisfaction Using Active and Passive Feedback.

Introduction: The outpatient department of any hospital is the first direct point of contact to the patients with the hospital. To understand the difficulties faced by the patients and to understand their perceptions, it is important to assess patient satisfaction. This study was designed to compare the difference in patient satisfaction responses and outcomes using two methods: active feedback collection (AFC) and passive feedback collection (PFC).

Methods: The study was conducted for a period of 2 months using a validated, structured questionnaire in four languages. To differentiate the questionnaires, those for PFC were marked P and those for AFC as A. The questionnaire consisted of 21 questions. PFC was obtained when patients voluntarily filled out the feedback forms placed at different locations, and AFC was obtained by systematically approaching randomly selected patients.

Results: Of the 809 patients who participated in the study, 131 were passive and 678 active. The study revealed that the satisfaction level was higher in the AFC group. It was observed that 82% of those in the PFC group and 35% of those in the AFC group had given specific written comments. The negative comments were higher in the PFC group than in the AFC group.

Conclusions: The AFC method gives a good overview of the patients' journeys through the system and it can be used for systemic feedback collection. The PFC method provides an avenue to get more written suggestions and adverse comments that could help in planning remedial measures. The study showed that both methods collect complementary information for the managers to facilitate improvement of services.

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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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