100% Patient Satisfaction Scores

What if I told you this 100% patient satisfaction score was due to a survey of only two people... that I personally picked?

Welcome to the big bad world of patient satisfaction scores.

Often (well... pretty much all the time), I come across an article, bulletin posting, or meeting where patient satisfaction scores are announced... but no background information to back it up. HOW many people completed the survey? HOW were the people selected? WHO administered the survey?

HOW many people completed the survey?

The number of patients who actually completed the survey is very important. Mainly, because of the variance that may occur month-to-month as well as ease in manipulating the results.

Let's assume only TWO people completed the survey. The first month, both give me a thumbs up giving me a score of 100%.

However, the following month, another TWO people completed the survey, but only one gave me a thumbs up giving me a score of 50%.

NEWSFLASH!!! "Patient satisfaction scores plummeted 50% over a 1 month period of time!"

In order for meaningful interpretation of patient satisfaction scores, enough survey results MUST be obtained, especially when comparing scores across time.

HOW were the people selected?

Let's pick on the emergency room...

If I wanted to "pad" my results, I would tend to provide surveys to patients who had simple problems and who were seen quickly.

Child with an earache? Let's seem them immediately in Fast-Track ER. [Look in the ear! There's an ear infection.] Here's some antibiotics. Can you also complete this survey?

As opposed to...

55 year old narcotic-addicted patient with fibromyalgia demanding a prescription for 500 percocet pills for his chest pain. I would probably not want this patient to fill out the survey. Neither would the patient as he would probably toss it.

Granted these are extremes, but if performance bonuses are provided to departments with the best patient satisfaction scores and the ER staff were the ones providing the surveys, one can easily manipulate the results in their favor.

WHO administered the survey?

As mentioned above, survey results can be manipulated depending on who provides or gives the survey, ESPECIALLY if money is involved based on the results of the survey.

In order for survey results to be meaningful, a third uninvolved party should be the one to administer the test.

Survey Fatigue

Now even if the survey was done dispassionately and adequate number of surveys were completed, there's still the problem of survey fatigue...

What's that?

I don't know about you all, but I get about 3-4 letters per week and at least one phone call per day asking me to complete a survey on my car, toothbrush, tater tots... etc. You name it... there's a survey for it now.

Now add how many questions are asked... Hopefully one so it's quick.

But also HOW the questions are asked (yes/no versus a scale of 1-10).

As a person completing a survey, if I had my way, there would only be one question that is a yes/no question.

The more questions there are and if they are scaled rather than yes/no, the less likely I'm going to do it.

Now add if you are sick and in pain... How likely are you going to actually complete a 50 question survey on a scale of 1-10???

Probably not...

In fact, it's probably only going to be healthy individuals who tend to give better scores giving a skewed result.

Also, given the survey fatigue I and I bet most people have, it will be a rushed completion without much thought given. The default being five stars all the way down (I may not even bother to read the questions).

A decent way to look for survey fatigue is to have 2 randomly buried questions where rather than 5 stars being the best, 1 star is the best. Surveys where everything is 4 or 5 stars INCLUDING the reversed scale questions should be thrown out.

Summary

Whether good or bad, patient satisfaction scores can be VERY misleading if not completely wrong...

I should also add that whenever money is involved, NO test is going to be 100% accurate due to cheating that WILL happen one way or another.

I predict that this problem is going to get MUCH worse because health insurances will soon base how much reimbursement hospitals and physicians get based on patient satisfaction scores. We are talking about millions and millions of dollars.

Just read about the "no-child left behind" from the Bush era where student test scores influenced teacher pay leading to teachers allowing cheating on tests.

TV Show HOUSE Exploring ENT Problems

I must clarify that I never really like TV show House for reasons explained here... but patients who love watching House have alerted me to some episodes this season that touched on ENT problems.

So... here goes...

Episode 21 (Season 8): Holding On
Diagnosis: Persistent Stapedial Artery

19 years old cheerleader was admitted after suffering from dizziness, massive nosebleed, and auditory hallucinations. It was ultimately determined that he was suffering from a persistent stapedial artery.

This artery is a congenital defect of the inner ear that should have obliterated during fetal development. However, if persistent, is typically found going through the stapes bone of the middle ear.

It CAN cause symptoms of dizziness as the pulsations of the artery can transmit through the stapes footplate and into the vestibule via the oval window. It can also cause auditory hallucinations by pressing against the nearby temporal lobe as well as a nosebleed. If the artery ruptures, it can only drain through the eustachian tube and out the nose.

However, if the patient presented to the ER with nosebleed and dizziness, a complete physical exam would have been performed and a clearly seen blood-filled middle ear cavity (hemotympanum) would have been seen that even a medical student would have found. That would have indicated an ear issue causing both the dizziness and nosebleed. Also, the patient would have complained of hearing loss with blood in the ear.

From that point, the differential diagnosis is actually quite small and would have been obtained relatively easily.

Episode 17 (Season 8): We Need The Eggs

Diagnosis: Amoebic Meningitis

35 years old man admitted to House’s service after he is discovered crying blood. He later develops light sensitivity, vomiting, and a stiff neck.

After suspecting meningitis, it was discovered that he was using a Neti Pot and was using tap water rather than distilled or sterilized water in order to perform saline flushes. The water happened to contain an amoeba (likely Naegleria fowleri) which caused an amoebic infection of the brain.  The culprit organism Naegleria fowleri causes a life-threatening encephalitis after passing thru the nose and up into the brain where the organism eats neurons for food.

Such brain infections have been recently reported in the news and can be prevented by using water that is boiled, distilled, or filtered.

Fortunately, it is rare.

If Computer Security Experts are Getting Hacked, Why are Hospitals/Doctors Expected to be Better?

As anyone knows from reading the newspaper recently, major computer security firms like RSA and Verisign have been hacked. Even the pentagon!

If companies that specialize in computer security get hacked, why are hospitals and doctors who do NOT specialize in computer security held to an even higher standard?

Criminal penalties against healthcare professionals and organizations are steep for computer data breaches at $100 per record with criminal penalties that can include fines of $250,000 and 10 years in prison.

Given such steep penalties, the assumption is that hospitals and physicians must be experts in computer and network security... even better than companies that specialize in this subject area... or can purchase one.

So who should healthcare organizations hire to secure their computers to avoid getting hacked as I can certainly tell you, they are most certainly not security experts?

Google? Symantec? RSA? Verisign? The pentagon?

They've all been hacked successfully... As such, how can we trust their security products?

The answer is simple... There is no company that can be contracted to provide bulletproof security.

The only way is to NOT use a computer at all!

So here's the interesting quandary...

The government is mandating hospital and physicians to transition to electronic medical records or start facing penalties for not doing so.

BUT, the electronic medical records must have bulletproof security or else criminal penalties and even jail-time can be had for any breaches.

With these mandates, the only thing doctors and hospitals can hope for is to not get noticed by hackers. Either get punished for not using a computer or get punished for not having a security system even better than the pentagon.

Source:
Why the security industry never actually makes us secure. CNET 3/3/12
HIPAA Violations and Enforcement. AMA