期刊
JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 13-26出版社
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2003.04.003
关键词
patient satisfaction; emergency medicine; emergency department; interpersonal skills; acuity; length of stay; technical skills; waiting time
This article reviews the empirical literature on patient satisfaction in the Emergency Department (ED). It explores the implications for clinical practice, discusses limitations and weaknesses of the literature, and provides direction for future research. Articles resulting from a comprehensive electronic search were obtained, their references examined, and all other relevant articles not already discovered via the electronic search were acquired and reviewed. Articles were included if: 1) the stated goal of the study was to investigate satisfaction with at least one aspect of ED care, 2) the study was conducted in the United States, 3) it provided enough information on the study methods, design, and statistical analyses to conduct a critical review, and 4) it used quantitative methods. Fifty studies met the above criteria. Based on the multivariate predictive studies, the most robust predictor of global satisfaction is the quality of interpersonal interactions with the ED provider. Perceived waiting times are more closely associated with satisfaction than actual waiting times. Several methods for improving satisfaction have shown promise, but none has garnered sufficient support to recommend unequivocally. Promising interventions include: providing information on how the ED functions through visual media, improving ED processes through performance improvement methodologies, and improving the interpersonal skills of providers. Interventions designed to reduce actual waiting times have not been sufficiently studied, but results from several well-designed studies suggest that such a strategy is unlikely to have as great an impact as those targeting perceived waiting times. To advance this area of research, investigators must use: 1) larger, more representative samples; 2) reliable and valid assessment instruments; 3) theory-driven hypothesis testing; and 4) randomized, controlled trials. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据