Are Low Patient Satisfaction Scores Always Due to the Provider?: Determinants of Patient Satisfaction Scores During Spine Clinic Visits.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of various components on patient satisfaction scores SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Patient satisfaction has become an important component of quality assessments. However, with many of these sources collecting satisfaction data reluctant to disclose detailed information, little remains known about the potential determinants of patient satisfaction. METHODS: Two hundred patients were contacted via phone within 3 weeks of new patient encounter with 11 spine providers. Standardized patient satisfaction phone survey consisting of 25 questions (1-10 rating scale) was administered. Questions inquired about scheduling, parking, office staff, teamwork, wait-time, radiology, provider interactions/behavior, treatment, and follow-up communication. Potential associations between these factors and three main outcome measures were investigated: (1) provider satisfaction, (2) overall clinic visit satisfaction, and (3) quality of care. RESULTS: Significant associations (P < 0.0001) with provider satisfaction, overall clinic visit satisfaction, and perceived overall quality of care were found with appointment scheduling, parking, office staff, teamwork, wait time, radiology, provider interactions/behavior, treatment, and follow-up communication. Nurse-practitioner/resident involvement was positively associated with scores (P ≤ 0.03). A "candy-man" effect was not noted, as pain medication prescribing did not play a significant role in satisfaction (P > 0.05).In multivariate regression analysis, explanation of medical condition/treatment (P = 0.002) and provider empathy (P = 0.04) were significantly associated with provider satisfaction scores, while the amount of time spent with the provider was not. Conversely, teamwork of staff/provider and follow-up communication were significantly associated with both overall clinic visit satisfaction and quality of care (P ≤ 0.03), while provider behaviors or satisfaction were not. CONCLUSION: Satisfaction with the provider was associated with better explanations of the spine condition/treatment plan and provider empathy, but was not a significant factor in either overall clinic visit satisfaction or perceived quality of care. Patients' perception of teamwork between staff and providers along with reliable follow-up communication were found to be significant determinants of overall patient satisfaction and perceived quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Economic value of treating lumbar disc herniation in Brazil.

OBJECT: Lumbar discectomy is one of the most common surgical spine procedures. In order to understand the value of this surgical care, it is important to understand the costs to the health care system and patient for good results. The objective of this study was to evaluate for the first time the cost-effectiveness of spine surgery in Latin America for lumbar discectomy in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for patients in Brazil. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective cohort study involving 143 consecutive patients who underwent open discectomy for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed utilizing the SF-6D, which is derived from a 12-month variation of the SF-36. Direct medical costs included medical reimbursement, costs of hospital care, and overall resource consumption. Disability losses were considered indirect costs. A 4-year horizon with 3% discounting was applied to health-utilities estimates. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying utility gain by 20%. The costs were expressed in Reais (R$) and US dollars ($), applying an exchange rate of 2.4:1 (the rate at the time of manuscript preparation). RESULTS: The direct and indirect costs of open lumbar discectomy were estimated at an average of R$3426.72 ($1427.80) and R$2027.67 ($844.86), respectively. The mean total cost of treatment was estimated at R$5454.40 ($2272.66) (SD R$2709.17 [$1128.82]). The SF-6D utility gain was 0.044 (95% CI 0.03197-0.05923, p = 0.017) at 12 months. The 4-year discounted QALY gain was 0.176928. The estimated cost-utility ratio was R$30,828.35 ($12,845.14) per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis showed a range of R$25,690.29 ($10,714.28) to R$38,535.44 ($16,056.43) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: The use of open lumbar discectomy to treat LDH is associated with a significant improvement in patient outcomes as measured by the SF-6D. Open lumbar discectomy performed in the Brazilian supplementary health care system provides a cost-utility ratio of R$30,828.35 ($12,845.14) per QALY. The value of acceptable cost-effectiveness will vary by country and region.