Monetary resident incentives: effect on patient satisfaction in an academic emergency department.

UNLABELLED: Patient satisfaction most be a priority in emergency departments (EDs). The care provided by residents forms much of the patient contact in academic EDs. OBJECTIVE: To determine if monetary incentives for emergency medicine (EM) residents improve patient satisfaction scores on a mailed survey. METHODS: The incentive program ran for nine months, 1999-2000. Press-Ganey surveys responses from ED patients in 456 hospitals; 124 form a peer group of larger, teaching hospitals. Questions relate to: 1) waiting time, 2) taking the problem seriously, 3) treatment information, 4) home care concerns, 5) doctor's courtesy, and 6) concern with comfort. A 5-point Likert scale ranges from "very poor" (0 points) to "very good" (100). Raw score is the weighted mean, converted to a percentile vs. the peer group. Incentives were three-fold: a year-end event for the EM residents if 80th percentile results were achieved; individual incentives for educational materials of $50/resident (50th percentile), $100 (60th), $150 (70th), or $200 (80th); discount cards for the hospital's espresso cart. These were distributed by 11 EM faculty (six cards/month) as rewards for outstanding interactions. Program cost was <$8,000, from patient-care revenue. Faculty had similar direct incentives, but nursing and staff incentives were ill defined and indirect. RESULTS: Raw scores ranged from 66.1 (waiting time) to 84.3 (doctor's courtesy) (n=509 or ∼7.2% of ED volume). Corresponding percentiles were 20th-43rd (mean=31st). We found no difference between the overall scores after the incentives, but three of the six questions showed improvement, with one, "doctors' courtesy," reaching 53(rd) percentile. The faculty funded the 50(th) percentile reward. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives are a novel idea to improve patient satisfaction, but did not foster overall Press-Ganey score improvement. We did find a trend toward improvement for doctor-patient interaction scores. Confounding variables, such as increasing patient census, could account for inability to demonstrate a positive effect.

The state of ED on-call coverage in California.

The ED provides initial treatment, but failure of specialists to respond unravels the safety net. To assess the scope of problems with on-call physicians in California. A mailed anonymous survey to all CAL/ACEP physician members (1876) asking patient, physician and ED demographics, specialist availability for consultation, insurance profile, and availability of follow-up care. 608/1876 physicians responded (32.4%), representing 320/353 California EDs (90.6%). The seven specialties in which the greatest proportion of EDs reported trouble with specialty response were: plastic surgery (37.5%), ENT (35.9%), dentistry (34.9%), psychiatry (26.0%), neurosurgery (22.9%), ophthalmology (18.4%) and orthopedics (18.0%). 71.6% of responder EDs reported that their medical staff rules required ED on-call coverage. However, the percentage of responders who stated that hospitals paid each specialty for call was low: neurosurgery (37.3%), orthopedics (34.4%), ENT (17.9%), plastic surgery (15.1%) and ophthalmology (13.1%). On-call problems were more acute at night (77.2%) or on weekends (72.4%). Patient insurance negatively affected (69.9%) willingness of on-call physicians to consult for at least a quarter of patients. Regarding follow-up, 91% reported some trouble, whereas 64% reported a problem at least half the time. Surgical sub-specialists are the most problematic on-call physicians. Insurance status has a major negative effect on ED and follow-up care. The on-call situation in California has reached crisis proportions.