Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Doctor Quality Ratings May Be Influenced By Setting

Madeline Kennedy  |  March 8, 2016

(Reuters Health)—Patients give the same doctors different ratings depending on where their visit took place, according to a small U.S. study.

Although doctors might act differently in an emergency department compared with a calmer office setting, researchers say the results also suggest that ratings are not a completely reliable measure of the quality of care physicians give.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

As healthcare payers put more focus on improving patient experiences, said senior author Dr. Christopher Jones of Cooper Medical School at Rowan University in Camden, N.J., “these scores are being used more and more to reward physicians and hospitals which do well, and to punish those who don’t perform so well.”

For the study in Annals of Emergency Medicine, the researchers compared patient satisfaction surveys collected from three different locations staffed by the same set of doctors. One setting was the emergency department at Cooper University Hospital—a more culturally diverse and urban environment, the researchers say. The other two settings were urgent care sites in more suburban areas nearby.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

The study team used quality ratings of 17 doctors from both emergency department and urgent care patients. Surveys were collected between June 2013 and August 2014 by Press Ganey, an independent quality assessment company.

The surveys asked patients to rate on a scale of one (very poor) to five (very good) how courteous the doctors were, how much doctors took time to listen, whether they kept patients informed about their treatment and their concern for patients’ comfort.

The study team hoped that looking just at the doctors’ ratings on courtesy would rule out the influence of outside factors, such as interactions with other healthcare staff, on patient perceptions of the doctor.

Nevertheless, patients who saw doctors in the hospital emergency department gave them consistently lower scores on all of the survey questions compared with patients who saw the same doctors in urgent care settings.

Based on 17 emergency department surveys and 79 from the urgent care settings, all of the doctors’ average scores for each courtesy question were between one third and one half point lower in the emergency department setting.

“As physicians it is also important to us that we are creating strong patient-physician relationships, that our patients feel respected, and that they are happy with the service they receive,” Jones said by email.

However, it is hard to measure this relationship without the influence of factors like wait times, other staff members and even how the treatment center looks, he added.

Page: 1 2 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Practice SupportProfessional Topics Tagged with:Emergency Departmenthospitalpatient satisfactionpatient surveysphysician

Related Articles

    What Do Your Patients Think About You?

    May 9, 2012

    Why your practice needs patient-satisfaction surveys

    Oksana Shufrych TKTK / Shutterstock.com

    Heated Gloves May Improve Hand Function in Diffuse Systemic Sclerosis

    October 16, 2017

    Systemic sclerosis (SSc), a subtype of scleroderma, is a rare, complex autoimmune disease characterized by widespread vasculopathy of the small arteries and fibroblast dysfunction.1,2 It has been described as a fibrosing micro­vascular disease, because vascular injury precedes and leads to tissue fibrosis.3 The resulting Raynaud’s phenomenon, pain, skin thickening and tightening, and multi-organ involvement have…

    Speak Out Rheum: Are Independent Measures of Patient Satisfaction Reliable?

    May 1, 2014

    Patient survey questionnaires, metrics to gauge physician performance may not be trustworthy indicators of quality of patient care

    Ethics Forum: Ethical Challenges Arise for Rheumatologists Pressed to See Patients of High Social, Professional Standing Before Others

    January 19, 2017

    The Case You’re working in a busy rheumatology practice with wait times of two to three months for new outpatient consultations. A hospital administrator requests that his daughter see you right away. All but one of your urgent appointment slots for the week is already filled, and there are several patients on a waitlist; these…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences