Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Wie zufrieden sind die klinischen Partner mit der Arbeit eines radiologischen Instituts? Entwicklung und Testung eines Fragebogens


Kubik-Huch, R A; Rexroth, M; Porst, R; Dürselen, L; Otto, R; Szucs, T (2005). Wie zufrieden sind die klinischen Partner mit der Arbeit eines radiologischen Instituts? Entwicklung und Testung eines Fragebogens. RöFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Röntgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin, 177(3):429-434.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a questionnaire for measuring referring physician satisfaction and to conduct a pilot study in which this questionnaire is given to all physicians referring patients to the authors' radiology department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After qualitative pre-testing and adjustment of the prototype questionnaire, data were collected using the finalized standardized questionnaire comprising 29 indicators rated on a 4-point ordinal scale mailed with a personalized cover letter to the total referring physician population of a radiology department (n = 727). The replies, rated 1 - 4, were entered into a data entry mask for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 33.8 %. The indicators with the highest satisfaction rating were the range of examinations offered ("very satisfied": 79.3 % mean 3.79), the quality of the technical equipment used for MRI and CT (79.3 %, 3.79) and mammography (82.5 %, 3.82), and the quality of the images yielded by these procedures (74.5 %, 3.73 and 82.2 %, 3.83). Dissatisfaction was relatively high with the indicators "time to receipt of the written report" (28.3 % "not very satisfied" or "not at all satisfied", mean 2.97), "time to receipt of the X-ray images" (18.2 %, 3.07) and "availability of previous findings" (20.9 %, 3.05); satisfaction was higher among external referring physicians (p < 0.05). Physicians rated the importance of these three indicators as relatively high ("very important": 62.4 %, 54.3 % and 49.6 %). Other indicators showing a similar level of dissatisfaction were "car parking availability" (24.1 %, 3.01), "patient waiting time" (27.4 %, 2.87) and "patient environment" (21.2 %, 2.99), although these factors were rated as less important ("very important": 33.0 %, 33.7 % and 40.4 %). CONCLUSION: This questionnaire constitutes a standardized validated instrument for assessing referring physician satisfaction with a radiology department. The data from this pilot study highlight areas for potential improvement. Deployment of such a questionnaire in different radiology departments could serve to establish best practice benchmarks.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop a questionnaire for measuring referring physician satisfaction and to conduct a pilot study in which this questionnaire is given to all physicians referring patients to the authors' radiology department. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After qualitative pre-testing and adjustment of the prototype questionnaire, data were collected using the finalized standardized questionnaire comprising 29 indicators rated on a 4-point ordinal scale mailed with a personalized cover letter to the total referring physician population of a radiology department (n = 727). The replies, rated 1 - 4, were entered into a data entry mask for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 33.8 %. The indicators with the highest satisfaction rating were the range of examinations offered ("very satisfied": 79.3 % mean 3.79), the quality of the technical equipment used for MRI and CT (79.3 %, 3.79) and mammography (82.5 %, 3.82), and the quality of the images yielded by these procedures (74.5 %, 3.73 and 82.2 %, 3.83). Dissatisfaction was relatively high with the indicators "time to receipt of the written report" (28.3 % "not very satisfied" or "not at all satisfied", mean 2.97), "time to receipt of the X-ray images" (18.2 %, 3.07) and "availability of previous findings" (20.9 %, 3.05); satisfaction was higher among external referring physicians (p < 0.05). Physicians rated the importance of these three indicators as relatively high ("very important": 62.4 %, 54.3 % and 49.6 %). Other indicators showing a similar level of dissatisfaction were "car parking availability" (24.1 %, 3.01), "patient waiting time" (27.4 %, 2.87) and "patient environment" (21.2 %, 2.99), although these factors were rated as less important ("very important": 33.0 %, 33.7 % and 40.4 %). CONCLUSION: This questionnaire constitutes a standardized validated instrument for assessing referring physician satisfaction with a radiology department. The data from this pilot study highlight areas for potential improvement. Deployment of such a questionnaire in different radiology departments could serve to establish best practice benchmarks.

Statistics

Citations

7 citations in Web of Science®
2 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

38 downloads since deposited on 10 Jun 2009
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Other titles:Referrer satisfaction as a quality criterion: developing an questionnaire for measuring the quality of services provided by a radiology department
Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute (EBPI)
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2005
Deposited On:10 Jun 2009 06:37
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:15
Publisher:Thieme
ISSN:1438-9010
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-858022
PubMed ID:15719307

Download

Preview Icon on Download
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 251kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations