Comparison of Outpatient Satisfaction Survey Scores for Asian Physicians and Non-Hispanic White Physicians.

Importance: Patient satisfaction scores are used to inform decisions about physician compensation, and there remains a lack of consensus regarding the need to adjust scores for patient race/ethnicity. Previous research suggests that patients prefer physicians of the same race/ethnicity as themselves and that Asian patients provide lower satisfaction scores than non-Hispanic white patients. Objective: To examine whether Asian physicians receive less favorable patient satisfaction scores relative to non-Hispanic white physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based survey study used data from Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Surveys collected from December 1, 2010, to November 30, 2014, which included 149 775 patient survey responses for 962 physicians. Every month, 5 patients per physician were randomly selected to complete a satisfaction survey after an outpatient visit. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between Asian race/ethnicity of the physician and racial/ethnic concordance of the patient with the probability of receiving the highest score on the survey item rating the likelihood to recommend the physician. Statistical analysis was performed from April 2 to August 27, 2018. Exposures: Physician characteristics included race/ethnicity, sex, years in practice, and proportion of Asian patient responders. Patient characteristics included race/ethnicity, sex, age, and language spoken. Main Outcomes and Measures: The highest score (a score of 5 on a 1-5 Likert scale, where 1 indicates very poor and 5 indicates very good) on the survey item rating the likelihood to recommend the physician on the Press Ganey Outpatient Medical Practice Survey. Results: Of the 962 physicians in this study, 515 (53.5%) were women; physicians had a mean (SD) of 19.9 (9.1) years of experience since graduating medical school; 573 (59.6%) were white, and 350 (36.4%) were Asian. In unadjusted analyses, the odds of receiving the highest score on the survey item rating the likelihood to recommend the physician were lower for Asian physicians compared with non-Hispanic white physicians (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84; P < .001). This association was not significant after adjusting for patient characteristics, including patient race/ethnicity. However, Asian patients were less likely to give the highest scores relative to non-Hispanic white patients (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.54-0.58; P < .001), regardless of physician race/ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that Asian physicians may be more likely to receive lower patient satisfaction scores because they serve a greater proportion of Asian patients. Patient satisfaction scores should be adjusted for patient race/ethnicity.

"Blush at first sight": significance of computed tomographic and angiographic discrepancy in patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: "Blush," defined as a focal area of contrast pooling within a hematoma, is frequently encountered in patients with severe blunt torso trauma. Contemporary clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of angiography with embolization in all hemodynamically stable patients with evidence of active extravasation. Patients presenting with blush visualized on computed tomography (CT), but not demonstrated on subsequent angiography, present a challenging clinical dilemma. The purpose of this study was to study the natural course of patients with this blush disparity between CT and angiography. METHODS: The study was conducted as a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent angiography after initial CT scans revealed blush after blunt abdominal trauma at a level I trauma center (January 2005 to December 2014). RESULTS: A total of 143 patients with blunt splenic injuries were found to have CT blush and underwent catheter angiography. Of the 143 patients with blush on CT, 24 (17%) showed no evidence of blush on angiography. Patients with CT-angiographic discrepancy were more than twice as likely to rebleed compared with those with angiographic evidence of blush (25% vs 10%, P < .05). This is due to the fact that although all patients with blush on angiography underwent embolization, only 7/22 of those with no evidence of blush were embolized. Sixty-eight patients with blunt liver injuries demonstrated blush on CT and underwent catheter angiography. Of the 68 patients with blush on CT, 22 patients (33%) showed no evidence of blush on angiography. None of these 22 patients underwent angioembolization. The rebleeding rate in this cohort was 32% (7/22). Again, this was more than twice the rate observed in patients who did have angiographic evidence of blush and were embolized (11%, 5/46). CONCLUSIONS: CT imaging has enhanced our ability to detect contrast extravasation after injury, and evidence of blush on CT suggests the presence of active hemorrhage. This analysis suggests that in clinical situations in which CT blush is noted secondary to blunt trauma to the spleen or liver, a negative angiogram still carries a significant risk of recurrent hemorrhage; consideration for empiric embolization at the time of the initial procedure even in the absence of blush on angiographic evaluation is thus warranted. Prospective studies are needed to validate these findings and to assess the utility of this clinical paradigm.