Objective
To evaluate effect of patient and physician demographics on Press Ganey (PG) survey
ratings for urologists.
Methods
PG surveys (02/2020-08/2021) for urologists at a single tertiary care center were
analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess
the relationship between patient and physician-level covariates and the primary outcome
of a “topbox” Overall Doctor Rating (topbox-ODR) score of 9 or 10 of 10.
Results
A total of 4155 surveys of 20 attending urologists (8 female (F)) across 7 subspecialties,
were assessed. Mean ODR score for F physicians was 9.2 (SD 1.7) compared to 9.5 (SD
1.3) for males (M), P < .001. Univariate regression demonstrated that F patients are less likely (OR 0.27,
P < .001) to give topbox-ODRs than M patients, and F physicians are 58% less likely
(OR 0.42, P = .01) to receive topbox-ODRs than M physicians. Oncologists are more likely to receive
topbox-ODRs (OR 3.3, P = .009) than all other subspecialists. Multivariate regression demonstrated that
M patients are more likely to give M physicians top-box-ODRs (OR 0.32, P = .02), while F patients are less likely to give topbox-ODRs to physicians of both
genders (M: OR 0.24, P < .001; F: 0.21, P < .001). Physicians in practice for >10 years are 66% less likely to receive topbox-ODRs
(OR 0.33, P = .002).
Conclusion
Urologists who care for F patients are at risk of being affected by bias in PG physician
ratings. M physicians who care for M patients appear to be at the least risk; while
F physicians who care for F patients appear to be at the highest risk.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Committee on Quality of Health Care in America: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century.National Academies Press, Washington, DC2001
- Ganey–first year of patient satisfaction measurement.Hosp Guest Relat Repo. 1986; 1: 4-5
- Effect of physician and patient gender concordance on patient satisfaction and preventive care practices.J Gen Intern Med. 2000; 15: 761-769
- Effects of surgeon sociodemographics on patient-reported satisfaction.Surgery. 2021; 169: 1441-1445
- Physician gender is associated with Press Ganey patient satisfaction scores in outpatient gynecology.Womens Health Issues. 2018; 28 (281e285)
- Women in surgery: challenges and opportunities.IJS Global Health. 2018; 1 (e02: 1-3)
- Defining the current landscape of women in urology: an analysis of female applicants, residents, and faculty at AUA-Accredited residency programs.Urology. 2021; 148: 59-63
- American Urological Association: The State of Urology Workforce and Practice in the United States 2020.Maryland, Linthicum2021
- Physician gender, physician patient-centered behavior, and patient satisfaction: a study in three practice settings within a hospital.Patient Educ Couns. 2014; 95: 313-318
- Urology is a sensitive area: assessing patient preferences for male or female urologists.Urol Pract. 2018; 5: 139-142
- The gender divide: the impact of surgeon gender on surgical practice patterns in urology.J Urol. 2016; 196: 1522-1526
- Evidence of non-response bias in the Press-Ganey patient satisfaction survey.BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16: 350
- Whose experience is measured? A pilot study of patient satisfaction demographics in pediatric otolaryngology.Laryngoscope. 2014; 124: 290-294
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 27, 2022
Accepted:
August 4,
2022
Received:
April 26,
2022
Footnotes
Financial Disclosure: The authors declare that they have no relevant financial interests.
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
