Outcome and patients' satisfaction after functional treatment of acute lateral ankle injuries at emergency departments versus family doctor offices

BACKGROUND: In some Western countries, more and more patients seek initial treatment even for minor injuries at emergency units of hospitals. The initial evaluation and treatment as well as aftercare of these patients require large amounts of personnel and logistical resources, which are limited and costly, especially if compared to treatment by a general practitioner. In this study, we investigated whether outsourcing from our level 1 trauma center to a general practitioner has an influence on patient satisfaction and compliance. METHODS: This prospective, randomized study, included n = 100 patients who suffered from a lateral ankle ligament injury grade I-II (16, 17). After radiological exclusion of osseous lesions, the patients received early functional treatment and were shown physical therapy exercises to be done at home, without immobilization or the use of stabilizing ortheses. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups of 50 patients each: Group A (ER): Follow-up and final examination in the hospital's emergency unit. Group B (GP): Follow-up by general practitioner, final examination at hospital's emergency unit. The patients were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the treatment and outcome of the treatment. RESULTS: Female and male patients were equally represented in both groups. The age of the patients ranged from 16 - 64 years, with a mean age of 34 years (ER) and 35 years (GP). 98% (n = 98) of all patients were satisfied with their treatment, and 93% (n = 93) were satisfied with the outcome. For these parameters no significant difference between the two groups could be noted (p = 0.7406 and 0.7631 respectively). 39% of all patients acquired stabilizing ortheses like ankle braces (Aircast, Malleoloc etc.) on their own initiative. There was a not significant tendency for more self-acquired ortheses in the group treated by general practicioners (p = 0,2669). CONCLUSION: Patients who first present at the ER with a lateral ankle ligament injury grade I-II can be referred to a general practitioner for follow-up treatment without affecting patient satisfaction regarding treatment and treatment outcome.

Patient satisfaction with primary care: an observational study comparing anthroposophic and conventional care

BACKGROUND: This study is part of a cross-sectional evaluation of complementary medicine providers in primary care in Switzerland. It compares patient satisfaction with anthroposophic medicine (AM) and conventional medicine (CON). METHODS: We collected baseline data on structural characteristics of the physicians and their practices and health status and demographics of the patients. Four weeks later patients assessed their satisfaction with the received treatment (five items, four point rating scale) and evaluated the praxis care (validated 23-item questionnaire, five point rating scale). 1946 adult patients of 71 CON and 32 AM primary care physicians participated. RESULTS: 1. Baseline characteristics: AM patients were more likely female (75.6% vs. 59.0%, p < 0.001) and had higher education (38.6% vs. 24.7%, p < 0.001). They suffered more often from chronic illnesses (52.8% vs. 46.2%, p = 0.015) and cancer (7.4% vs. 1.1%). AM consultations lasted on average 23,3 minutes (CON: 16,8 minutes, p < 0.001). 2. Satisfaction: More AM patients expressed a general treatment satisfaction (56.1% vs. 43.4%, p < 0.001) and saw their expectations completely fulfilled at follow-up (38.7% vs. 32.6%, p < 0.001). AM patients reported significantly fewer adverse side effects (9.3% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.003), and more other positive effects from treatment (31.7% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001). Europep: AM patients appreciated that their physicians listened to them (80.0% vs. 67.1%, p < 0.001), spent more time (76.5% vs. 61.7%, p < 0.001), had more interest in their personal situation (74.6% vs. 60.3%, p < 0.001), involved them more in decisions about their medical care (67.8% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.022), and made it easy to tell the physician about their problems (71.6% vs. 62.9%, p = 0.023). AM patients gave significantly better rating as to information and support (in 3 of 4 items p [less than or equal to] 0.044) and for thoroughness (70.4% vs. 56.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AM patients were significantly more satisfied and rated their physicians as valuable partners in the treatment. This suggests that subject to certain limitations, AM therapy may be beneficial in primary care. To confirm this, more detailed qualitative studies would be necessary.

Family satisfaction in the intensive care unit: what makes the difference?

PURPOSE: To assess family satisfaction in the ICU and to identify parameters for improvement. METHODS: Multicenter study in Swiss ICUs. Families were given a questionnaire covering overall satisfaction, satisfaction with care and satisfaction with information/decision-making. Demographic, medical and institutional data were gathered from patients, visitors and ICUs. RESULTS: A total of 996 questionnaires from family members were analyzed. Individual questions were assessed, and summary measures (range 0-100) were calculated, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction. Summary score was 78 +/- 14 (mean +/- SD) for overall satisfaction, 79 +/- 14 for care and 77 +/- 15 for information/decision-making. In multivariable multilevel linear regression analyses, higher severity of illness was associated with higher satisfaction, while a higher patient:nurse ratio and written admission/discharge criteria were associated with lower overall satisfaction. Using performance-importance plots, items with high impact on overall satisfaction but low satisfaction were identified. They included: emotional support, providing understandable, complete, consistent information and coordination of care. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, proxies were satisfied with care and with information/decision-making. Still, several factors, such as emotional support, coordination of care and communication, are associated with poor satisfaction, suggesting the need for improvement. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1611-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.