Effect of timing on the response to postal questionnaires concerning satisfaction with anaesthesia care.

BACKGROUND: There is little information on the effect of time on the assessment by the patient of quality of anaesthesia care. This study compared the patient's assessment of anaesthesia care after three different periods of time following discharge from hospital. Materials. Three groups of patients were assigned to receive a standardized, validated psychometric questionnaire either 1, 5, or 9 weeks after discharge from hospital. We measured response rate and the total mean problem score of six dimensions. RESULTS: Groups 1, 2, and 3 received 748, 743, and 723 questionnaires, respectively. The response rates including one reminder were 67.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 63.9-70.6%), 64.5% (CI 61.1-67.9%), and 58.9% (CI 55.5-62.4%), respectively (Group 1 vs Group 3, P<0.001, and Group 2 vs Group 3, P<0.05). The total mean problem scores were not significantly different with 17 (CI 1.4%), 17 (CI 1.4%), and 15% (CI 1.3%), respectively. In two out of six dimensions ('Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist' and 'Nursing care in recovery room') significantly less problems were reported after 9 weeks. The other dimensions of the questionnaire showed no consistent differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate is significantly lower at 9 weeks compared with 1 and 5 weeks after discharge. The total mean problem score remains unchanged but certain fields show fewer problems after 9 weeks compared with 1 and 5 weeks. Questionnaires on patient satisfaction with anaesthesia care should be sent within 5 weeks of discharge.

Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia care: development of a psychometric questionnaire and benchmarking among six hospitals in Switzerland and Austria.

BACKGROUND: We describe the development and comparison of a psychometric questionnaire on patient satisfaction with anaesthesia care among six hospitals. METHODS: We used a rigorous protocol: generation of items, construction of the pilot questionnaire, pilot study, statistical analysis (construct validity, factor analysis, reliability analysis), compilation of the final questionnaire, main study, repeated analysis of construct validity and reliability. We compared the mean total problem score and the scores for the dimensions: 'Information/Involvement in decision-making', and 'Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist'. The influence of potential confounding variables was tested (multiple linear regression). RESULTS: The average problem score from all hospitals was 18.6%. Most problems are mentioned in the dimensions 'Information/Involvement in decision-making' (mean problem score: 30.9%) and 'Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist' (mean problem score: 32.2%). The overall assessment of the quality of anaesthesia care was good to excellent in 98.7% of cases. The most important dimension was 'Information/Involvement in decision-making'. The mean total problem score was significantly lower for two hospitals than the total mean for all hospitals (significantly higher at two hospitals) (P<0.05). Amongst the confounding variables considered, age, sex, subjective state of health, type of anaesthesia and level of education had an influence on the total problem score and the two dimensions mentioned. There were only marginal differences with and without the influence of the confounding variables for the different hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: A psychometric questionnaire on patient satisfaction with anaesthesia care must cover areas such as patient information, involvement in decision-making, and contact with the anaesthetist. The assessment using summed scores for dimensions is more informative than a global summed rating. There were significant differences between hospitals. Moreover, the high problem scores indicate a great potential for improvement at all hospitals.