Abstract

BACKGROUND: To understand neurologists' experiences and perspectives on patient satisfaction feedback and its impact on personal well-being and behavior.METHODS: From May to June 2021, the researchers conducted 19 semistructured interviews with neurologists from a large academic medical center. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory informed a combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis of the qualitative data, which focused on perceptions of current feedback practices, its impact on physician behavior, and recommendations for improvement.RESULTS: Participants tended to be female (n?=?12/19, 63.2%), aged 30-39 (n?=?8/19, 42.1%), white (n?=?9/19, 47.4%), and were 10+ years into clinical practice (n?=?18/19, 94.7%). Physicians were receptive to feedback overall, but perceptions varied by feedback type. Physicians preferred informal feedback (delivered unprompted directly by patients), given its tendency toward actionability. They disliked formal feedback (derived from anonymous surveys) due to low actionability, bias and validity issues, lack of contextual considerations, delivery through public reports, and links to financial incentives. Nearly all physicians reported formal feedback programs had the potential to negatively affect well-being and were not beneficial to their practice; a few reported adjusting their clinical practice to improve patient satisfaction performance. Five recommendations to improve patient satisfaction feedback programs emerged: Align on feedback intent, acknowledge survey limitations during program administration, increase actionability of feedback through specificity and control, support direct patient-physician feedback and problem resolution, and support empathetic integration of feedback.CONCLUSION: Understanding physician perceptions of current approaches to patient satisfaction feedback offers the opportunity to shape subsequent collection and distribution methods to improve physician performance and optimize professional fulfillment.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jcjq.2022.12.003

View details for PubMedID 36732115