Patient Satisfaction in Neurosurgery Clinic.

BACKGROUND: National commercial surveys are used to assess patient satisfaction. However, the information obtained does not always correspond to the clinical situation and therefore may be inadequate to help improve a specific patient experience when through no fault of its design, results in low response rates and inadequate specifics.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to investigate patient satisfaction using real-time in-person patient experience survey responses at the end of a neurosurgical clinic visit and review the results from these survey responses and those from national commercial survey responses provided by the hospital for the ability to affect change.

METHODS: This is a prospective study from October 2023 to December 2023 during which a paper copy of 10 questionnaires derived from a national commercial outpatient clinical survey was given to every unique patient who was neurologically capable of filling it out at the end of his or her neurosurgery clinic visit. The electronic medical record was used to collect patient demographics and details of the clinic visit. National commercial survey responses from July 2022 to November 2023 provided by the hospital were reviewed.

RESULTS: A total of 149 patients were seen in the neurosurgery clinic from October 2023 to December 2023, 121 patients were given the in-person patient satisfaction survey, and the response rate was 100%. The mean age was 46.5 years with females constituted 45.5% of the patient sample. The visit type included 46 (38.0%) new patients, 53 (43.8%) returning patients, and 22 (18.2%) post-op patients, of which 45.5% presented with cranial pathologies. Comparing the patient satisfaction level between those seen by one provider and those seen by two providers, such as resident, or mid-level with attending, patients seen by two providers were less satisfied with "feeling respected by the providers" (4.92 vs. 4.64, p=0.0088), "feeling listened to by the providers" (4.84 vs. 4.50, p=0.0180), and "feeling appreciated that the providers discussed illness prevention" (4.72 vs. 4.29, p=0.0232). Due to a lack of necessary information from our national commercial outpatient clinic survey responses provided by the hospital, a direct comparison between the in-person survey and our national commercial outpatient clinic survey was not made.

CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction surveys when not given in real-time in-person run the risk of low response rate and lack of specifics to help guide providers in quality improvement. Our data supports the use of real-time in-person patient satisfaction surveys that not only increase response rate but also provide useful information to help improve patient experience.