How Feedback Is Given Matters: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Satisfaction Feedback Delivery and Physician Well-being.

Vilendrer SM, Kling SMR, Wang H, Brown-Johnson C, Jayaraman T, Trockel M, Asch SM, Shanafelt TD. How Feedback Is Given Matters: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Satisfaction Feedback Delivery and Physician Well-being. Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2021 Oct 1; 96(10):2615-2627.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how variation in the way patient satisfaction feedback is delivered relates to physician well-being and perceptions of its impact on patient care, job satisfaction, and clinical decision making. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional electronic survey was sent to faculty physicians from a large academic medical center in March 29, 2019. Physicians reported their exposure to feedback (timing, performance relative to peers, or channel) and related perceptions. The Professional Fulfillment Index captured burnout and professional fulfillment. Associations between feedback characteristics and well-being or perceived impact were tested using analysis of variance or logistic regression adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of 1016 survey respondents, 569 (56.0%) reported receiving patient satisfaction feedback. Among those receiving feedback, 303 (53.2%) did not believe that this feedback improved patient care. Compared with physicians who never received feedback, those who received any type of feedback had higher professional fulfillment scores (mean, 6.6±2.1 vs 6.3±2.0; P = .03) but also reported an unfavorable impact on clinical decision making (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% CI, 1.8 to 4.7; P < .001). Physicians who received feedback that included one-on-one discussions (as opposed to feedback without this channel) held more positive perceptions of the feedback''s impact on patient care (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.0; P = .003), whereas perceptions were less positive in physicians whose feedback included comparisons to named colleagues (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 0.8; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Providing patient satisfaction feedback to physicians was associated with mixed results, and physician perceptions of the impact of feedback depended on the characteristics of feedback delivery. Our findings suggest that feedback is viewed most constructively by physicians when delivered through one-on-one discussions and without comparison to peers.