Development and Implementation of a Registry of Patients Attending Multidisciplinary Pain Treatment Clinics: The Quebec Pain Registry.

The Quebec Pain Registry (QPR) is a large research database of patients suffering from various chronic pain (CP) syndromes who were referred to one of five tertiary care centres in the province of Quebec (Canada). Patients were monitored using common demographics, identical clinical descriptors, and uniform validated outcomes. This paper describes the development, implementation, and research potential of the QPR. Between 2008 and 2013, 6902 patients were enrolled in the QPR, and data were collected prior to their first visit at the pain clinic and six months later. More than 90% of them (mean age ± SD: 52.76 ± 4.60, females: 59.1%) consented that their QPR data be used for research purposes. The results suggest that, compared to patients with serious chronic medical disorders, CP patients referred to tertiary care clinics are more severely impaired in multiple domains including emotional and physical functioning. The QPR is also a powerful and comprehensive tool for conducting research in a "real-world" context with 27 observational studies and satellite research projects which have been completed or are underway. It contains data on the clinical evolution of thousands of patients and provides the opportunity of answering important research questions on various aspects of CP (or specific pain syndromes) and its management.

Patients' perceptions of cardiac anesthesia services: a pilot study.

PURPOSE: To develop an instrument to measure patients' perceptions of the services provided by anesthesiologists, an important indicator of quality for which little information is available. METHODS: The scale of patients' perceptions of cardiac anesthesia services (SOPPCAS) is composed of 17 Likert-type and sociodemographic questions. Data collection was conducted on T-1 (fourth postoperative day) and T-2 (15 days postoperatively). In addition, we employed the Marlow-Crowne scale and a short form of the Psychological Symptoms Index to verify the influence of social desirability and psychological distress respectively. Data analysis included a principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: One hundred seventy patients answered the questionnaires at T-1 and 133 patients at T-2. Cronbach alpha of the SOPPCAS was 0.58. PCA revealed four perioperative factors: patient/anesthesiologist interactions, preoccupations related to anesthesia, experience with anesthesia and pain management. Global mean satisfaction was 4.45 +/- 0.64 (maximum score 6.0). Main items related to satisfaction were: satisfaction with premedication, empathy from anesthesiologists, pain management. Main items related to dissatisfaction were: lack of information on blood transfusion and recall of endotracheal intubation. A score of 14/20 was obtained for social desirability. Social desirability did not influence the construct of the SOPPCAS. CONCLUSION: We developed, using rigorous methods, an instrument to measure patients' perceptions of the quality of cardiac anesthesia services. Global mean satisfaction with anesthesia services was moderately high contrary to previous studies where it was high. Finally, the SOPPCAS should allow anesthesiologists to improve the quality of the care they provide.

Patient satisfaction with anesthesia services.

PURPOSE: The evaluation of services by patients is an essential component of continuous quality improvement in anesthesiology. Little is known, however, about how to achieve this objective. Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of all available studies on patient satisfaction with anesthesia services, thereby ascertaining the present level of knowledge in this field and suggesting ways of improving current measurement methodologies. SOURCE: We reviewed relevant major data banks--Medline, Dissertation Abstract, Psyclit and Cochrane--between 1980 and 2000 and bibliographies from primary sources. We used the following keywords for our search: quality improvement, anesthesia, quality, patient perceptions, consumer satisfaction, continuous quality improvement, outcome measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The review yielded 14 pertinent studies. Studies were divided into two groups (A & B), according to the quality of the psychometric evaluation (tests performed to verify the reliability and validity of an instrument). While all studies reported high levels of patient satisfaction with anesthesia services, many used methods of questionable value. None of the 14 studies controlled for any confounding variables, such as social desirability. Four studies had seriously biased their data collection and the majority of the studies lacked rigour in the development of the instrument used to measure patient satisfaction. Only one study presented a definition of the concept measured, and none provided a conceptual model of patients' satisfaction with anesthesia services. CONCLUSION: The currently available studies of patient satisfaction are of questionable value. Only rigorous methods and reliable instruments will yield valid and clinically relevant findings of this important issue in anesthesiology.

Clinimetric scale to measure surgeons' satisfaction with anesthesia services.

PURPOSE: Continuous quality improvement is of increasing interest to anesthesiologists. Since surgeons are coworkers and important clients of anesthesiologists, the level of satisfaction of surgeons with anesthesia services should be explored to optimize quality. The purpose of this study was, first, to introduce the concept of surgeons as clients of anesthesiologists and second, to develop and test an instrument to measure surgeons' satisfaction, the Surgeon Satisfaction with Anesthesia Services (SSAS) scale. METHODS: A conceptual model of surgeon satisfaction with anesthesia services was created before the development of the SSAS scale. The scale, composed of socio-demographic, Likert-type and open-ended questions was sent to a sample of 250 surgeons selected randomly by the Collège des Médecins du Québec. Exploratory factorial analysis were performed on the results. RESULTS: A Cronbach's alpha of 0.84 was obtained for internal consistency. Exploratory factorial analysis yielded two subscale factors: a) clinical expertise and b) attitudes and behaviour Global mean of surgeons'satisfaction was moderately high (3.11/4.0). Satisfaction was not related to sociodemographic variables. Very high scores were obtained for items related to clinical expertise. Items related to attitudes and behaviour obtained lower scores. A significant difference was obtained between both factors (t = -5.732, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The SSAS scale is a new instrument to evaluate surgeon satisfaction. Overall, surgeons seem satisfied with anesthesia services, but many areas of dissatisfaction persist. Further discussions with surgeons should be encouraged, in view of improving the perceptions of the quality of anesthesia services and interprofessional relationships.