
==== Front
Interv Pain Med
Interv Pain Med
Interventional Pain Medicine
2772-5944
Elsevier

S2772-5944(22)00141-8
10.1016/j.inpm.2022.100143
100143
Original Article
Evaluating opportunities for improved outpatient satisfaction in an interventional spine clinic: An analysis of Press Ganey® Outpatient Medical Practice Survey responses
Stephens Andrew R. Andrew_stephens@urmc.rochester.edu
a∗1
McCormick Zachary L. b
Conger Aaron b
Burnham Taylor b
a University of Rochester Medical Center, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 601 Elmwood Ave, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA
b University of Utah, Department of Orthopaedics, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA
∗ Corresponding author. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Box 664, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. Andrew_stephens@urmc.rochester.edu
1 The work was completed at this institution.

08 9 2022
12 2022
08 9 2022
1 4 10014323 5 2022
9 8 2022
11 8 2022
© 2022 The Authors
2022
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Objective

The Press Ganey® Outpatient Medical Practice Survey (PGOMPS) is a frequently used patient satisfaction metric comprised of provider-specific and non-provider-specific questions. The PGOMPS results are used by many administrators to improve the patient experience and are linked to physician reimbursements in some cases. This study aimed to determine the frequency of patient satisfaction for the provider-specific and non-provider-specific PGOMPS questions and their association with the likelihood of a patient recommending their provider's clinic.

Design

A retrospective review.

Methods

Adult patients attending a university interventional spine clinic between January 2014 and December 2019 were included in this study. We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected patient satisfaction using PGOMPS. Data was collected within 30 days after an outpatient interventional spine clinic appointment. Satisfaction was defined as receiving a perfect total score. The frequency of perfect scores for each question was calculated. Chi-square (goodness-of-fit) analysis was performed between the number of patients who gave perfect satisfaction on all provider specific questions and the number of patients who gave perfect satisfaction for non-provider scores irrespective of their provider specific scoring. Spearman correlation between individual PGOMPS questions and the likelihood to recommend the practice question were calculated.

Results

53,118 patients patient encounters were included. 2078 (66.65%) provider-specific questions received perfect satisfaction versus 1121 (35.95%) with perfect satisfaction for non-provider specific questions (p ​< ​0.001). The five questions most likely to receive perfect satisfaction were: physician spoke using clear language (92.90%), physician friendliness/courtesy (82.74%), cleanliness of the practice (82.67%) likelihood to recommend practice (81.27%), and likelihood to recommend physician (80.96%). The 5 least likely were: convenience of office hours (64.30%), wait time (63.00%), ease of getting on phone (60.77%), information about delays (60.19%), and ability to get desired appointment (58.92%). Of the 10 questions that had the strongest correlation with likelihood to recommend the practice 7 were related to the physician. None of the 10 questions with the least correlation were related to the physician.

Conclusions

Most interventional spine patients are satisfied with their providers and less satisfied with non-provider-related aspects of their encounters. Provider-specific factors carry the greatest influence in the patient's perceived satisfaction with the experience as a whole and likelihood to recommend the practice.

Keywords

Patient satisfaction
Press Ganey
Patient reported outcome
Outcomes
Reimbursements
Spearman's correlation
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Increasing focus has been placed on measuring and reporting patient satisfaction over the past decade. This is partly because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has enabled Medicare to connect reimbursements to measurements of the patients' care experience [1]. Patient satisfaction is often measured by a patient answering established questions regarding their experience during a clinical encounter. Patient satisfaction research has shown that many non-provider-specific factors are associated with lower patient satisfaction. Examples include: education level [[2], [3]], psychological status [4], comorbidity status [5], insurance status [6], sex [[7], [8], [9], [10]], race [2,[9], [10], [11], [12]] and age of patients [[6], [8], [13], [14]], setting/location of the patient encounter [[2], [9], [15], [16]], the length of time between visit and submission of the survey [5], and distance traveled to the clinic [[13], [14], [15], [16], [17]].

The Press Ganey® Outpatient Medical Practice Survey (PGOMPS) is commonly used to measure patient satisfaction throughout many hospitals and clinics throughout the United States, and the results can impact physician reimbursement [[18], [19], [20], [21]]. Like other satisfaction questionaries, the PGOMPS questions can also be categorized into provider-specific and non-provider-specific questions. Approximately half of the survey is composed of questions that directly relate to the provider with additional questions that evaluate other components of the encounter: factors related to nursing and staff, access to care, staff, lab work, and the office in general [22]. The majority of the published studies evaluate patient satisfaction with the overall PGOMPS score. Attempts to evaluate individual PGOMPS questions or determine whether provider-specific or non-provider specific questions are correlated with patient satisfaction in the literature are sparse. Delineating and identifying variables that may be responsible for patient dissatisfaction may be helpful to clinicians and health care administrators to identify specific variable(s) that could improve patient satisfaction. This would be specifically beneficial for the interventional spine patient population. Previous work has demonstrated that patients with spine pathology tend to report lower satisfaction compared to other patient populations [[23], [24]]. Further, this information has never been reported specifically in the interventional spine patient population.

The purpose of the study was to determine the frequency of patient satisfaction for the provider-specific and non-provider-specific PGOMPS questions and their correlation with the likelihood of a patient recommending their provider's interventional spine clinic. Understanding these results will aid health care administrators and providers in quality improvement efforts to enhance the patient experience.

2 Materials and methods

The current study received IRB approval (IRB 00101230). Consecutive patients who prospectively completed the PGOMPS between January 2014 to December 2019 ​at our interventional spine clinic were retrospectively reviewed. Only PGOMPS were included because the institution contracted with Press Ganey Corporation to measure and report patient satisfaction scores in the outpatient setting.

2.1 Data collection

Consistent with institutional practice, after a clinical visit, each patient was emailed a link to a PGOMPS questionarrie. Patients received the survey after any visit, new or follow-up. A reminder email was sent if the survey remained unsubmitted after 5 business days. The survey was accessible for the patients for 30 days after receiving the link.

Each PGMOPS measures multiple aspects of care. The provider specific questions include: physician time spent with patient, confidence in physician, physician explained problem or condition, physician friendliness/courtesy, physician concern for patient questions/worries, physician follow-up care instruction, physician effort to include patient in decisions, physician information about meds, physician spoke using clear language, and likelihood to recommend the physician. In our study, we defined the remaining questions as non-provider-specific questions. Examples of non-provider specific questions include: staff protected your safety, nursing concerns, ability to get the desired appointment, and wait time. These questions relate to other areas of the visit including: moving through your visit, access of care, nursing, and personal issues (such as safety and privacy and overall care). Wait time is defined as the amount of time from when the patient enters the clinic until when they are seen by their provider.

2.2 Statistical analysis

PGOMPS questions are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating very poor and 5 indicating very good. The responses are converted to a 100-point scale and the total score is reported on a 100-point scale. Given the high ceiling effect of the survey [[13], [22], [25]], we defined satisfaction as receiving a perfect (100) score. The frequency of patients who gave a perfect score for each individual question was calculated. Chi-square (goodness-of-fit) analysis was performed between the number of patients who gave perfect satisfaction on all provider specific questions and the number of patients who gave perfect satisfaction for non-provider scores irrespective of their provider specific scoring. Finally, we calculated Spearman's correlation coefficient matrixes between specific PGOMPS questions and the likelihood to recommend the practice question were calculated. The likelihood to recommend the practice was selected because it has previously been shown to be a reliable proxy for overall satisfaction [26]. Likelihood of recommending practice was selected over likelihood of recommending provider given that previous literature has indicated non-provider related factors such as wait time and ease of scheduling an appointment have a significant impact on overall patient satisfaction [[22], [27]]. This assumes that a patient's likelihood to recommend the practice to family and friends indirectly infers how satisfied they were with their experience.

3 Results

A total of 3118 patient encounters during our study period were identified. The mean patient age was 59 (±15) and our cohort was 63% female (Table 1).Table 1 Patient demographics.

Table 1Variable	Mean/N	(Stndard Deviation/%	
Age	58.9	14.8	
Race/Ethnicity	
White	2796	89.7%	
Hispanic	145	4.7%	
Asian	54	1.7%	
Black	19	0.6%	
Native American	16	0.5%	
Hawaiian	6	0.2%	
Other	82	2.6%	
Marital Status	
Married/Life Partner	1968	63.1%	
Single	549	17.6%	
Previously Married	510	16.4%	
Not Disclosed	91	2.9%	
Employment Status	
Employed	1424	45.7%	
Disabled	128	4.1%	
Not Employed	324	10.4%	
Retired	1213	38.9%	
Student	16	0.5%	
Not Disclosed	13	0.4%	
Residential Status	
Instate	2804	89.9%	
Out of State	314	10.1%	

A total of 1071 (34.3%) patients reported perfect satisfaction on the Total Score. The frequency of patients who reported perfect satisfaction to all provider-specific questions was 66.65% (N ​= ​2078). The frequency of patients who reported perfect satisfaction on all non-provider-specific questions was 35.95% (N ​= ​1121). Chi-square analysis demonstrated that the proportion of patients reporting satisfaction with provider-specific elements of their visit was significantly greater than that for the non-provider elements of their visit (p ​< ​0.001).

An illustration of the frequency of perfect satisfaction with each specific PGOMPS question is reported in Table 2. Of the top-scoring 10 questions, 6 were related directly to the provider: physician spoke using clear language, friendliness/courtesy of physician, likelihood to recommend physician, confidence in physician, physician effort to include you in decisions, physician concern for your questions/worries and physician explained problem or condition.Table 2 Frequency of perfect satisfaction for individual PGOMPSa questions.

Table 2Press Ganey Question	Percent Perfect	
Physician Spoke Using Clear Language	82.90%	
Physician Friendliness/Courtesy	82.74%	
Cleanliness Of Practice	82.67%	
Likelihood Recommend Practice	81.27%	
Physician Likelihood to Recommend	80.96%	
Physician Confidence	80.83%	
Nurse Friendliness	80.61%	
Physician Effort to Include You in Decisions	80.21%	
Physician Concern for Your Questions/Worries	79.77%	
Physician Explained Problem or Condition	79.18%	
Staff Work Together	79.06%	
Concern For Privacy	78.53%	
Courtesy Registration Staff	78.40%	
Discussion of Any Proposed Treatment	78.15%	
Lab Tech Courtesy	78.01%	
Physician Information About Meds	77.59%	
Staff Protect Safety	77.58%	
Physician Time Spent	76.36%	
Physician Instructions Follow-up Care	76.25%	
Sensitivity To Needs	75.61%	
Nurse Concern	75.07%	
How Well Nurse Listened to You	75.06%	
Lab Test Wait Time	70.09%	
Ease of Contacting the Clinic	67.10%	
Ease Of Scheduling Appointment	65.74%	
Convenience Of Office Hours	64.30%	
Wait Time	63.00%	
Ease Of Getting on Phone	60.77%	
Information About Delays	60.19%	
Ability To Get Desired Appointment	58.92%	
a Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey.

The 10 questions patients were least satisfied with related to the practice in general: nurse concern for patient, how well nurse listened to you, lab test wait time, ease of contacting the clinic, ease of scheduling appointment, convenience of office hours, wait time, ease of getting on phone, information about delays, ability to get desired appointment. The provider-specific questions patients were least satisfied with were: physician information about meds, physician time spent, and physician's instructions about follow up.

Spearman's correlation for specific questions with the likelihood to recommend the practice to others is presented in Table 3. Overall, provider-specific questions demonstrated a higher correlation with a patient's likelihood of recommending the practice to others than questions related to the office and nursing staff, access of care, and moving through the visit. Specifically, seven of the 10 questions with the strongest correlation were related to the provider: physician likelihood to recommend, physician confidence, physician effort to include you in decisions, physicians concern for your questions/worries, physician explained problem or condition, physician friendly/courteous and physician instructions regarding follow care.Table 3 Correlation of individual questions to “likelihood of your recommending our practice with others".

Table 3Press Ganey Question	Spearman's Correlation	Confidence Interval	P value	
Physician Likelihood to Recommend	0.822	0.808, 0.835	<0.001	
Staff Work Together	0.807	0.792, 0.821	<0.001	
Physician Confidence	0.775	0.757, 0.792	<0.001	
Physician Effort to Include You in Decisions	0.743	0.725, 0.761	<0.001	
Sensitivity to Needs	0.732	0.710, 0.752	<0.001	
Physician Concern for Your Questions/Worries	0.728	0.709, 0.746	<0.001	
Physician Explained Problem or Condition	0.718	0.698, 0.737	<0.001	
Physician Friendliness/Courtesy	0.715	0.694, 0.735	<0.001	
Discussion of Any Proposed Treatment	0.715	0.655, 0.766	<0.001	
Physician Instructions Follow-up Care	0.695	0.672, 0.717	<0.001	
Physician Information About Meds	0.692	0.666, 0.716	<0.001	
Physician Spoke Using Clear Language	0.685	0.661, 0.707	<0.001	
Concern For Privacy	0.66	0.637, 0.683	<0.001	
Physician Time Spent	0.652	0.627, 0.675	<0.001	
Cleanliness of Practice	0.626	0.599, 0.651	<0.001	
Staff Protect Safety	0.614	0.587, 0.639	<0.001	
How Well Nurse Listened to You	0.603	0.528, 0.668	<0.001	
Ease of Contacting the Clinic	0.569	0.491, 0.639	<0.001	
Nurse Concern	0.555	0.528, 0.582	<0.001	
Nurse Friendliness	0.552	0.523, 0.580	<0.001	
Lab Tech Courtesy	0.551	0.512, 0.587	<0.001	
Lab Test Wait Time	0.541	0.502, 0.577	<0.001	
Information About Delays	0.475	0.441, 0.508	<0.001	
Ease Of Scheduling Appointment	0.47	0.440, 0.499	<0.001	
Courtesy Registration Staff	0.465	0.435, 0.494	<0.001	
Convenience of Office Hours	0.439	0.406, 0.471	<0.001	
Ability To Get Desired Appointment	0.423	0.392, 0.453	<0.001	
Wait Time	0.416	0.383, 0.447	<0.001	
Ease Of Getting on Phone	0.385	0.349, 0.420	<0.001	

4 Discussion

Our primary finding is that patients were more likely to report perfect satisfaction with provider-specific Press Ganey questions than for questions not specifically related to the provider. These included questions pertaining to additional aspects of their clinic visit including ability to get on the phone, ease of scheduling, and staff issues. Likewise, our study also demonstrated that compared other elements of the survey, provider-specific questions had a stronger correlation with the likelihood of a patient to recommend the practice to others. Our findings are consistent with previous work performed in plastic and orthopaedic surgery which demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation between provider-specific questions and the “likelihood to recommend the practice to others,” [[26], [27]]. Similar findings have also been demonstrated for pediatric orthopedic, dermatology and neurology clinics [[28], [29], [30]].

Our findings are consistent with previous literature that has shown wait time to impact patient satisfaction scores significantly [[22], [23], [27], [31], [32]].

Concordant with previous literature, our study shows that overall, patients are satisfied with their providers [26,[28], [29], [30]]. However, understanding what specific factors patients perceive to be important in their care can help providers and health care leaders implement strategies to improve the patient experience with aspects not related to the provider (Table 4) and aspects directly related to the providers (Table 5). The present study highlights potential areas for improvement where patients reported lower levels of satisfaction. Specifically related to the provider, the 3 questions least likely to receive perfect satisfaction were “Time spent with physician,” “physician information about medications,” “physician instructions on follow-up care.” Understanding how these results compare with the Spearman's correlation can be additionally enlightening. For example, although instructions about follow-up care were the provider-specific question demonstrating the lowest satisfaction rate, it had one of the strongest correlations with a patient's likelihood of recommending the practice. Structuring the clinic to ensure adequate provider time with their patients could improve the patient's experience. Additionally, creating mechanisms to clearly and simplistically provide information regarding medications and follow-up care instructions efficiently and effectively could also prove valuable. Providers striving to improve the overall experience of their patient's care could consider addressing these areas through formal or informal quality improvement projects.Table 4 Patient priorities for non-provider aspects of care.

Table 4Press Ganey Question	Percent Perfect	
Cleanliness Of Practice (MD)	82.67%	
Likelihood Recommend Practice (MD)	81.27%	
Nurse Friendliness (MD)	80.61%	
Staff Work Together (MD)	79.06%	
Concern For Privacy (MD)	78.53%	
Courtesy Registration Staff (MD)	78.40%	
Discussion of Any Proposed Treatment	78.15%	
Lab Tech Courtesy (MD)	78.01%	
Staff Protect Safety (MD)	77.58%	
Sensitivity To Needs (MD)	75.61%	
Nurse Concern (MD)	75.07%	
How Well Nurse Listened To You (MD)	75.06%	
Lab Test Wait Time (MD)	70.09%	
Ease of Contacting the Clinic (MD)	67.10%	
Ease Of Scheduling Appointment (MD)	65.74%	
Convenience Of Office Hours (MD)	64.30%	
Wait Time (MD)	63.00%	
Ease Of Getting On Phone (MD)	60.77%	
Information About Delays (MD)	60.19%	
Ability To Get Desired Appointment (MD)	58.92%	

Table 5 Patient Priorities for-Providers.

Table 5Press Ganey Question	Percent Perfect	
Physician Spoke Using Clear Language	82.90%	
Physician Friendliness/Courtesy	82.74%	
Physician Likelihood to Recommend	80.96%	
Physician Confidence	80.83%	
Physician Effort to Include You In Decisions	80.21%	
Physician Concern for Your Questions/Worries	79.77%	
Physician Explained Problem Or Condition	79.18%	
Physician Information About Meds	77.59%	
Physician Time Spent	76.36%	
Physician Instructions Follow-up Care	76.25%	

The seven questions patients were least satisfied with related to areas that are indirectly influenced by providers in some settings or not at all in others. These included “information about delays,” “ability to get desired appointments,” and “convenience of office hours.” Although practical and implementable solutions will vary across institutions, the general implication of our study is that these areas are likely outside of the exclusive control of providers and reimbursement structuring should be adjusted accordingly. Improvement in these areas may require significant fiscal investment through the hiring of more staff and providers to help patients receive adequate and timely care.

Our study has several limitations that merit acknowledgment. As this study was performed at a single institution, generalizations of the results to health care systems elsewhere may be limited. Additionally, patients travel from a large geographical region to be seen at our clinic. This may impact the expectations and experience of our patients, and potentially their satisfaction with the clinical encounter that may not apply to health care systems with smaller catchment areas. Given the nature of PG surveys, the results of this study may be impacted by non-response bias. For our institution, previous work has demonstrated response rates to range between 8.9 and 16.5% [[22], [25]]. Previously, a study found that the patient sex, age, and insurance status differed between those who completed the PGOMPS and patients who did not [33]. It is unclear how these factors may impact our results. Nevertheless, a low response rate is a real-world limitation of PGOMPS and other patient outcome surveys that are utilized to subjectively measure the quality of care provided to patients. Currently, our understanding of the ability of PGOMPS to measure quality of care delivered to patients is also limited. Recent literature comparing PGOMPS to other patient-reported outcome measures in orthopedics has demonstrated mixed results. Several articles in the joint replacement literature [[34], [35], [36]] demonstrate that Press Ganey does not correlate well with other patient reported outcome measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function scores. Literature in foot and ankle surgery [37] and hand surgery [4], however have demonstrate a positive correlation.

5 Conclusions

The results of our study suggest that the majority of patients who complete the PGOMP survey are satisfied with their providers. The present data also suggests that providers-specific factors influence the patient's perceived satisfaction with the experience as a whole and likelihood to recommend the practice. Areas of dissatisfaction with the clinic encounter pertain to aspects that may not necessarily be within the direct control of providers during the specific encounter. Administrators of health care systems should consider these results when seeking ways to improve patient satisfaction and when determining how or if scores should be linked to physician reimbursement.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflict of interest statement

None of the authors have any relevant conflict of interest.
==== Refs
References

1 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services The hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program. Secondary the hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/HVBP/Hospital-Value-Based-Purchasing.html 2018
2 Agarwal N. Faramand A. Bellon J. Limitations of patient experience reports to evaluate physician quality in spine surgery: analysis of 7485 surveys J Neurosurg Spine 2019 1 4 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18104 [published Online First: Epub Date]|
3 Kebede S. Shihab H.M. Berger Z.D. Shah N.G. Yeh H.C. Brotman D.J. Patients' understanding of their hospitalizations and association with satisfaction JAMA Intern Med 174 10 2014 1698 1700 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.3765 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 25133358
4 Tyser A.R. Gaffney C.J. Zhang C. Presson A.P. The association of patient satisfaction with pain, anxiety, and self-reported physical function J Bone Joint Surg Am 100 21 2018 1811 1818 10.2106/JBJS.17.00372 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 30399075
5 Hopkins B.S. Patel M.R. Yamaguchi J.T. Cloney M.B. Dahdaleh N.S. Predictors of patient satisfaction and survey participation after spine surgery: a retrospective review of 17,853 consecutive spinal patients from a single academic institution. Part 1: Press Ganey J Neurosurg Spine 30 3 2019 382 388 10.3171/2018.8.SPINE18594 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 30611140
6 Mordhorst T.R. McCormick Z.L. Presson A.P. Collier W.H. Spiker W.R. Examining the relationship between epidural steroid injections and patient satisfaction Spine J 20 2 2020 207 212 10.1016/j.spinee.2019.09.024 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 31563577
7 Delanois R.E. Gwam C.U. Mistry J.B. Does gender influence how patients rate their patient experience after total hip arthroplasty? Hip Int 28 1 2018 40 43 10.5301/hipint.5000510 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 28574128
8 Nguyen Thi P.L. Briancon S. Empereur F. Guillemin F. Factors determining inpatient satisfaction with care Soc Sci Med 54 4 2002 493 504 11848270
9 Cambria B. Basile J. Youssef E. The effect of practice settings on individual Doctor Press Ganey scores: a retrospective cohort review Am J Emerg Med 2018 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.11.025 [published Online First: Epub Date]|
10 Etier B.E. Jr. Orr S.P. Antonetti J. Thomas S.B. Theiss S.M. Factors impacting Press Ganey patient satisfaction scores in orthopedic surgery spine clinic Spine J 16 11 2016 1285 1289 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.04.007 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 27084192
11 Barr D.A. Race/ethnicity and patient satisfaction. Using the appropriate method to test for perceived differences in care J Gen Intern Med 19 9 2004 937 943 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30415.x [published Online First: Epub Date]| 15333058
12 Moore A.D. Hamilton J.B. Knafl G.J. The influence of mistrust, racism, religious participation, and access to care on patient satisfaction for African American men: the North Carolina-Louisiana Prostate Cancer Project J Natl Med Assoc 105 1 2013 59 68 10.1016/s0027-9684(15)30086-9 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 23862297
13 Abtahi A.M. Presson A.P. Zhang C. Saltzman C.L. Tyser A.R. Association between orthopaedic outpatient satisfaction and non-modifiable patient factors J Bone Joint Surg Am 97 13 2015 1041 1048 10.2106/JBJS.N.00950 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 26135070
14 Danforth R.M. Pitt H.A. Flanagan M.E. Brewster B.D. Brand E.W. Frankel R.M. Surgical inpatient satisfaction: what are the real drivers? Surgery 156 2 2014 328 335 10.1016/j.surg.2014.04.029 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 24953272
15 Bendesky B.S. Hunter K. Kirchhoff M.A. Jones C.W. Same physician, different location, different patient satisfaction scores Ann Emerg Med 68 5 2016 531 535 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2015.12.021 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 26875063
16 Sharp B. Johnson J. Hamedani A.G. Hakes E.B. Patterson B.W. What are we measuring? Evaluating physician-specific satisfaction scores between emergency departments West J Emerg Med 20 3 2019 454 459 10.5811/westjem.2019.4.41040 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 31123545
17 Patterson B.M. Draeger R.W. Olsson E.C. Spang J.T. Lin F.C. Kamath G.V. A regional assessment of medicaid access to outpatient orthopaedic care: the influence of population density and proximity to academic medical centers on patient access J Bone Joint Surg Am 96 18 2014 e156 10.2106/JBJS.M.01188 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 25232086
18 Deyo R.A. Imaging idolatry: the uneasy intersection of patient satisfaction, quality of care, and overuse Arch Intern Med 169 10 2009 921 923 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.124 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 19468081
19 Johnston C.B. Patient satisfaction and its discontents JAMA Intern Med 173 22 2013 2025 2026 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.11356 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 24126815
20 Scott A. Sivey P. Ait Ouakrim D. The effect of financial incentives on the quality of health care provided by primary care physicians Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9 2011 CD008451 10.1002/14651858.CD008451.pub2 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 21901722
21 Wexler R. Patient satisfaction as a quality metric promotes bad medicine JAMA Intern Med 174 8 2014 1418 1419 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1624 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 25090185
22 Rane A.A. Tyser A.R. Presson A.P. Zhang C. Kazmers N.H. Patient satisfaction in the hand surgery clinic: an analysis of factors that impact the press Ganey survey J Hand Surg Am 44 7 2019 539 547 e1 10.1016/j.jhsa.2019.03.015 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 31103247
23 Chen Y.R. Johnson E. Montalvo C. Patient satisfaction and press Ganey scores for spine versus nonspine neurosurgery clinics Clin Spine Surg 32 4 2019 E188 E192 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000825 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 30969193
24 Stephens A.R. Presson A.P. Chen D. Tyser A.R. Kazmers N.H. Inter-specialty variation of the press Ganey outpatient medical practice survey Medicine (Baltim) 100 12 2021 e25211 10.1097/MD.0000000000025211 [published Online First: Epub Date]|
25 Presson A.P. Zhang C. Abtahi A.M. Kean J. Hung M. Tyser A.R. Psychometric properties of the press Ganey(R) outpatient medical practice survey Health Qual Life Outcome 15 1 2017 32 10.1186/s12955-017-0610-3 [published Online First: Epub Date]|
26 Chen K. Congiusta S. Nash I.S. Factors influencing patient satisfaction in plastic surgery: a nationwide analysis Plast Reconstr Surg 142 3 2018 820 825 10.1097/PRS.0000000000004658 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 30148793
27 Stephens A.R. Rowberry T.J. Tyser A.R. Kazmers N.H. Evaluating opportunities for improved orthopedics outpatient satisfaction: an analysis of Press Ganey(R) Outpatient Medical Practice Survey responses J Orthop Surg Res 15 1 2020 28 10.1186/s13018-020-1567-1 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 31992339
28 Peng F.B. Burrows J.F. Shirley E.D. Rosen P. Unlocking the doors to patient satisfaction in pediatric orthopaedics J Pediatr Orthop 38 8 2018 398 402 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000837 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 27442213
29 Ahmed S. Miller J. Burrows J.F. Bertha B.K. Rosen P. Evaluation of patient satisfaction in pediatric dermatology Pediatr Dermatol 34 6 2017 668 672 10.1111/pde.13294 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 29144047
30 Singh S.C. Sheth R.D. Burrows J.F. Rosen P. Factors influencing patient experience in pediatric neurology Pediatr Neurol 60 2016 37 41 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2016.04.002 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 27238409
31 Bleustein C. Rothschild D.B. Valen A. Valatis E. Schweitzer L. Jones R. Wait times, patient satisfaction scores, and the perception of care Am J Manag Care 20 5 2014 393 400 25181568
32 Kreitz T.M. Winters B.S. Pedowitz D.I. The influence of wait time on patient satisfaction in the orthopedic clinic J Patient Exp 3 2 2016 39 42 10.1177/2374373516652253 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 28725834
33 Tyser A.R. Abtahi A.M. McFadden M. Presson A.P. Evidence of non-response bias in the Press-Ganey patient satisfaction survey BMC Health Serv Res 16 a 2016 350 10.1186/s12913-016-1595-z [published Online First: Epub Date]| 27488567
34 Chughtai M. Patel N.K. Gwam C.U. Do press Ganey scores correlate with total knee arthroplasty-specific outcome questionnaires in postsurgical patients? J Arthroplasty 32 9S 2017 S109 S112 10.1016/j.arth.2017.01.007 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 28189440
35 Chughtai M. Gwam C.U. Khlopas A. No correlation between press Ganey survey responses and outcomes in post-total hip arthroplasty patients J Arthroplasty 33 3 2018 783 785 10.1016/j.arth.2017.09.037 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 29096971
36 Kohring J.M. Pelt C.E. Anderson M.B. Peters C.L. Gililland J.M. Press Ganey outpatient medical practice survey scores do not correlate with patient-reported outcomes after primary joint arthroplasty J Arthroplasty 33 8 2018 2417 2422 10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.044 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 29691167
37 Nixon D.C. Zhang C. Weinberg M.W. Presson A.P. Nickisch F. Relationship of press Ganey satisfaction and PROMIS function and pain in foot and ankle patients Foot Ankle Int 41 10 2020 1206 1211 10.1177/1071100720937013 [published Online First: Epub Date]| 32660263
