Text Size

Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help on Patient Satisfaction in General Practices

This study has been completed.
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Nanne Kleefstra, Medical Research Foundation, The Netherlands
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
NCT01466140
First received: October 21, 2011
Last updated: November 4, 2011
Last verified: November 2011
History of Changes

October 21, 2011
November 4, 2011
January 2011
March 2011   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)
Patient satisfaction measured with the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire [ Time Frame: 15-30 minutes (after the consultation patients filled in the questionnaire) ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
The primary endpoint is the 'Professional Care' (PC) scale of the 'Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire' (CSQ). In a previous study the score on the PC were 88.2 en 80.9 in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The standard deviations were 11.8 en 16.1. For our sample size calculation we used an expected standard deviation of 15. The sample size required to detect a difference of 7 on the PC scale between the intervention and control group, with a power of 90%, and alpha of 5% (two-tailed), and a standard deviation of 15, was 196 patients. We rounded this number off to 200.
Same as current
Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01466140 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site
  • Patient satisfaction measured with the Visual Analog Scale [ Time Frame: 15-30 minutes (patients filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation) ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    On a scale of 0-10 patients could fill in the Visual Analog Scale with regard to the patient satisfaction during the consultation
  • Doctor satisfaction measured with the Visual Analog Scale [ Time Frame: 15-30 minutes (general pracitioners filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation) ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    On a scale from 0-10 general practitioners could fill in the Visual Analog Scale with regard to their own satisfaction about the consultation
  • Duration of the consultation [ Time Frame: 15-30 minutes (after the consultation the doctor measured the time with a stopwatch) ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
    Duration of the consultation was compared between both groups
Same as current
Not Provided
Not Provided
 
Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help on Patient Satisfaction in General Practices
Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help With Regard to Patient Satisfaction in General Practices

The primary objective of this study is to determine whether exploring the request for help more thoroughly improves patient satisfaction in general practice (primary care).

Patient satisfaction has been an important topic of interest in primary health care during the last decade(s). Many factors during the consultation influence patient satisfaction. One of the aspects in a consultation is the request for help; especially in primary care the request for help has been recognised as an important aspect influencing patient satisfaction. The investigators hypothesized that exploring the request for help more thoroughly would improve patient satisfaction in general practice.
Interventional
Not Provided
Allocation: Randomized
Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Single Blind (Subject)
Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Patient Satisfaction
  • Doctor Satisfaction
  • Duration of Consultation
Other: Writing down request for help
Patients in the intervention group could write down their request for help on a request card (with a maximum of 2 questions).
  • No Intervention: Control group
    Patients in the control group were asked to participate in a patient satisfaction study. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire with respect to patient satisfaction.
  • Experimental: Use of request card
    Patients in the intervention group were told that the practice was participating in a patient satisfaction study, and they were given an envelope with information about the 'doorknob phenomenon' and a request card. The envelope for the control group only consisted of information about a patient satisfaction study, without any information on the 'doorknob phenomenon', and without a request card. Both groups received the same letter with patient information about the study.
    Intervention: Other: Writing down request for help
Not Provided

*   Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline.
 
Completed
209
May 2011
March 2011   (final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Inclusion Criteria:

  • All patients with a new request for help.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Dementia
  • Mental disability
  • No or little knowledge of the Dutch language
  • Illiteracy
  • Limited vision
Both
Not Provided
Yes
Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects
Netherlands
 
NCT01466140
EffectsPS1
No
Nanne Kleefstra, Medical Research Foundation, The Netherlands
Nanne Kleefstra
Not Provided
Study Chair: Henk Bilo Medical Research Centre
Medical Research Foundation, The Netherlands
November 2011

ICMJE     Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP