[Assessment of the patient satisfaction with a Nuclear Medicine Service]. / Evaluación del grado de satisfacción de los pacientes atendidos en un servicio de Medicina Nuclear.

GOAL: To know the perceived quality and the levels of patient satisfaction with the Nuclear Medicine Service (MN). METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed. The authors designed a self-applied questionnaire based on a questionnaire from a survey created by the National Health Service of the UK. The answers of 32 items were analyzed, including 4 social-demographic questions and one open question. The authors recoded the variables related to service quality and recorded them as "in accordance" and "not in accordance." The validity of the questionnaire was measured using Cronbach's alpha and determination (R(2)) indexes. The authors used the χ(2), Student's T, ANOVA and linear regression analysis statistical tests. RESULTS: A total of 179 questionnaires were analyzed (response rate: 36.6%, sampling error: 5.8%). Evaluation of general satisfaction and the recommendation of the NM Service obtained a mean score of 8.96 and 9.20 (1-10 scale) points, respectively. The most influential variable regarding general satisfaction was the general impression of the organization of the service. The strong points of the service were courtesy, general organizational image and cleanliness. The main areas for improvement were appointment change process and waiting list. There were no significant differences regarding satisfaction due to the social-demographic variables except for age. CONCLUSION: This satisfaction survey has shown that patients are satisfied with the Nuclear Medicine Service and that it is a useful tool to detect the strong points and areas for improvement of the Service from the user's perspective.

Evaluación del grado de satisfacción de los pacientes atendidos en un servicio de Medicina Nuclear / Assessment of the Patient Satisfaction with a Nuclear Medicine Service

Objetivo. Conocer la calidad percibida y el grado de satisfacción de los pacientes con el servicio de Medicina Nuclear (MN). Metodología. Estudio descriptivo transversal. Se diseñó un cuestionario, adaptando un cuestionario elaborado por el National Health Service. Se analizaron las respuestas de 32 ítems, incluyendo 4 preguntas socio-demográficas y una abierta. Las variables relacionadas con la calidad de servicio se recodificaron en conformidad y no conformidad. Se midió la validez del cuestionario a través de los coeficientes alfa de Cronbach y de determinación (R2). Se utilizaron los test estadísticos χ2, t de Student, ANOVA y análisis de regresión lineal. Resultados. Fueron analizados 179 cuestionarios (tasa de respuesta: 36,6%, error muestral: 5,8%). La valoración de la satisfacción general y la recomendación del servicio de MN obtuvieron una puntuación media de 8,96 y 9,20 puntos respectivamente (escala 1-10). La variable que más influyó en la satisfacción general fue la impresión de la organización del servicio. Los principales puntos fuertes del servicio fueron la cortesía, la impresión de la organización del servicio y la limpieza; y las principales áreas de mejora, el cambio de cita y la lista de espera. No hubo diferencias significativas en la satisfacción en función de las variables sociodemográficas excepto para la edad. Conclusiones. La encuesta de satisfacción realizada nos ha permitido conocer que los pacientes están satisfechos con el Servicio de MN y, al mismo tiempo, constituye un instrumento útil para poder detectar los puntos fuertes y áreas de mejora del servicio desde la óptica del usuario(AU)

Goal. To know the perceived quality and the levels of patient satisfaction with the Nuclear Medicine Service (MN). Methods. A cross-sectional descriptive study was performed. The authors designed a self-applied questionnaire based on a questionnaire from a survey created by the National Health Service of the UK. The answers of 32 items were analyzed, including 4 social-demographic questions and one open question. The authors recoded the variables related to service quality and recorded them as "in accordance" and "not in accordance". The validity of the questionnaire was measured using Cronbach's alpha and determination (R2) indexes. The authors used the χ2, Student's T, ANOVA and linear regression analysis statistical tests. Results. A total of 179 questionnaires were analyzed (response rate: 36.6%, sampling error: 5.8%). Evaluation of general satisfaction and the recommendation of the NM Service obtained a mean score of 8.96 and 9.20 (1-10 scale) points, respectively. The most influential variable regarding general satisfaction was the general impression of the organization of the service. The strong points of the service were courtesy, general organizational image and cleanliness. The main areas for improvement were appointment change process and waiting list. There were no significant differences regarding satisfaction due to the social-demographic variables except for age. Conclusion. This satisfaction survey has shown that patients are satisfied with the Nuclear Medicine Service and that it is a useful tool to detect the strong points and areas for improvement of the Service from the user‘s perspective(AU)

[Usefulness of multilevel analysis of satisfaction questionnaires on clinical units and medical specialties]. / Utilidad del análisis multinivel en las encuestas de satisfacción para evaluar las unidades clínicas y las especialidades médicas.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the usefulness of multilevel analysis applied to satisfaction surveys to assess the ambulatory care offered by the Clinical Units and Medical Specialties. METHODS: Telephone surveys were conducted on 6,922 patients seen in outpatient visits in the Navarra Health System in order to assess 94 Clinical Units and 37 Medical Specialties. A hierarchical analysis was then performed at 3 levels (patients, Clinical Units and Medical Specialties). RESULTS: The patient explained between 91.7% and 99.3% of the variability in the satisfaction survey scores. The patient perception of service quality also depends of the clinical unit, in 18 out of 20 items analysed, the variance related to the Clinical Unit was statistically significant, and ranged from 0.9% and 8.3%. The Medical Specialty explained 4.2% of the variability in only one item. Patients aged under 65 years, patients seen in first visit, and those who were seen at tertiary hospitals gave the lowest scores. CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel analysis is a useful tool to analyse and compare satisfaction survey results, as it can correctly distinguish the different Clinical Units of a health service, and this is a key element in the management of these Units. Moreover, it gives the percentage of variability due to each level and which variables predict the quality of service obtained.

Percepción de los profesionales sobre la utilización y la utilidad del listado de verificación quirúrgica / The healthcare professional's perceptions on the implementation and usefulness of the surgical safety checklist

Objetivo. Conocer la percepción de los profesionales sobre el grado de utilización y la utilidad del listado de verificación quirúrgica (LVQ) tras su implantación en un hospital terciario. Material y métodos. Estudio descriptivo transversal. Cuestionario autocumplimentado con 5 preguntas sobre utilidad, 5 sobre utilización, 1 pregunta abierta y 4 preguntas de control. La población objetivo: cirujanos, anestesiólogos, enfermeras de planta y de quirófano del hospital. Resultados. La tasa de respuesta fue del 73% (entre el 51 y el 88%, según perfil profesional). El 95,7% de los profesionales manifestó utilizar siempre o casi siempre el LVQ cuando se interviene a un paciente quirúrgicamente. Los profesionales otorgaron al LVQ una utilidad media de 6,6 puntos (escala, 0-10), el 11,6% manifestó que gracias al LVQ se habían evitado errores, el 32,5% consideró que es una herramienta que mejora la comunicación entre los profesionales, y al 68% le gustaría que se cumplimentase el LVQ si ellos mismos fuesen a ser intervenidos. Los profesionales que contestaron que gracias al LVQ se consiguió evitar errores otorgaron valores de utilidad 1,4 puntos por encima de la media, en este mismo grupo, al 100% de los profesionales les gustaría que se utilizase el LVQ en ellos mismos y el 63,2% consideró que mejoraba la comunicación. No hubo diferencias en la utilidad en función de la experiencia profesional o el sexo. Conclusiones. Los profesionales utilizan casi siempre el LVQ y le otorgan una utilidad moderada. Los profesionales que experimentaron que gracias al LVQ se había conseguido evitar errores confirieron al LVQ una utilidad mayor que los que no lo experimentaron(AU)

Objective. To find out the perception of the health care professionals on the level of implementation and the usefulness of the surgical safety checklist (LVQ) after its introduction in a tertiary care hospital. Material and method. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a specially designed self-completion questionnaire. This consisted of 5 questions on the usefulness, 5 questions on the use of the LVQ, one open question and 4 control questions. The target population was hospital surgeons, anaesthetists, ward nurses, and surgical nurses. Results. The response rate was 73%, ranking from 51% to 88% depending on the respondent profile. Almost all (95.7%) of the respondents declared they always or almost always used the LVQ when performing a surgical operation. The health care professionals rated the usefulness of the LVQ with a mean of 6.6 (scale, 1-10); 11.6% mentioned that actual errors had been avoided through the use of the LVQ; 32.5% considered the LVQ as a tool that improves communication between professionals; and 68% of the respondents declared they would like the LVQ to be used if they were surgical patients. Those respondents who answered that the LVQ had prevented errors gave higher usefulness scores, 1.4 above the mean. In this same group, 100% of the respondents would like the LVQ to be used on themselves and 63.2% considered that communication had improved. There were no differences in usefulness scores as regards professional experience or gender. Conclusions. The health care professionals use the LVQ very frequently, and consider that it has a moderate usefulness. Those professionals with experience of the LVQ preventing errors considered it to be more useful than those who did not experience an error being prevented(AU)

[The healthcare professional's perceptions on the implementation and usefulness of the surgical safety checklist]. / Percepción de los profesionales sobre la utilización y la utilidad del listado de verificación quirúrgica.

OBJECTIVE: To find out the perception of the health care professionals on the level of implementation and the usefulness of the surgical safety checklist (LVQ) after its introduction in a tertiary care hospital. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using a specially designed self-completion questionnaire. This consisted of 5 questions on the usefulness, 5 questions on the use of the LVQ, one open question and 4 control questions. The target population was hospital surgeons, anaesthetists, ward nurses, and surgical nurses. RESULTS: The response rate was 73%, ranking from 51% to 88% depending on the respondent profile. Almost all (95.7%) of the respondents declared they always or almost always used the LVQ when performing a surgical operation. The health care professionals rated the usefulness of the LVQ with a mean of 6.6 (scale, 1-10); 11.6% mentioned that actual errors had been avoided through the use of the LVQ; 32.5% considered the LVQ as a tool that improves communication between professionals; and 68% of the respondents declared they would like the LVQ to be used if they were surgical patients. Those respondents who answered that the LVQ had prevented errors gave higher usefulness scores, 1.4 above the mean. In this same group, 100% of the respondents would like the LVQ to be used on themselves and 63.2% considered that communication had improved. There were no differences in usefulness scores as regards professional experience or gender. CONCLUSIONS: The health care professionals use the LVQ very frequently, and consider that it has a moderate usefulness. Those professionals with experience of the LVQ preventing errors considered it to be more useful than those who did not experience an error being prevented.