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

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Patient Satisfaction; Doctor Satisfaction; Duration of Consultation
• Interventions: Other: Writing down request for help

• Registration Number: NCT01466140
• Lead Sponsor: Nanne Kleefstra

Brief Summary

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).

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.

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2011-01
• Primary Completion: 2011-03
• Study Completion: 2011-05
• Study First Submitted: 2011-10-21
• Status Verified: 2011-11
• Study First Submitted QC: 2011-11-04
• Last Update Submitted: 2011-11-04
• Study First Posted: 2011-11-06
• Last Update Posted: 2011-11-06

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 209

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

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Use of request card	Writing down request for help	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.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Patient satisfaction measured with the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire	15-30 minutes (after the consultation patients filled in the questionnaire)	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

Name	Time	Method
Patient satisfaction measured with the Visual Analog Scale	15-30 minutes (patients filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation)	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	15-30 minutes (general pracitioners filled in the Visual Analog Scale after the consultation)	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	15-30 minutes (after the consultation the doctor measured the time with a stopwatch)	Duration of the consultation was compared between both groups

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

Isala Clinics; 🇳🇱 Zwolle, Overijssel, Netherlands