Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help on Patient Satisfaction in General Practices - Full Text View

Purpose

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).

Condition	Intervention
Patient Satisfaction Doctor Satisfaction Duration of Consultation	Other: Writing down request for help


Study Type:	Interventional
Study Design:	Allocation: Randomized Endpoint Classification: Efficacy Study Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Single Blind (Subject) Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
Official Title:	Effects of Writing Down the Request for Help With Regard to Patient Satisfaction in General Practices

Further study details as provided by Medical Research Foundation, The Netherlands:

Primary Outcome Measures:

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.

Secondary Outcome Measures:

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


Enrollment:	209
Study Start Date:	January 2011
Study Completion Date:	May 2011
Primary Completion Date:	March 2011 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Arms	Assigned Interventions
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.	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).

Arms

Assigned Interventions

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.

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).

Detailed Description:

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.

Eligibility


Genders Eligible for Study:	Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:	Yes

Criteria

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

Contacts and Locations

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the Contacts provided below. For general information, see Learn About Clinical Studies.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01466140

Locations


Netherlands
Isala Clinics
Zwolle, Overijssel, Netherlands, 8025 AB

Sponsors and Collaborators

Nanne Kleefstra

Investigators


Study Chair:	Henk Bilo	Medical Research Centre

More Information

No publications provided


Responsible Party:	Nanne Kleefstra, MD, PhD, assistant professor, Medical Research Foundation, The Netherlands
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:	NCT01466140 History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers:	EffectsPS1
Study First Received:	October 21, 2011
Last Updated:	November 4, 2011
Health Authority:	Netherlands: The Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO)

Keywords provided by Medical Research Foundation, The Netherlands:


Patient Satisfaction Request for help General practice

ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on February 27, 2015