Relationship of Press Ganey Satisfaction and PROMIS Function and Pain in Foot and Ankle Patients

Abstract

Background: Patient satisfaction has garnered interest as a tool to measure health care quality. However, orthopedic studies in total joint arthroplasty, spine, and hand patients have offered conflicting relationships between Press Ganey (PG) satisfaction metrics and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. No prior study has assessed the relationship between PG and PROs in foot and ankle patients. Whether satisfaction and outcomes instruments, though, measure similar or differing aspects of the patient experience is unclear. Here, we tested if there was an association between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) outcomes and PG satisfaction scores. Methods: PG and PROMIS outcomes data for new patient visits to an orthopedic foot and ankle clinic between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients that completed PG satisfaction surveys were included for study. All patients who completed PG surveys and completed one or both PROMIS physical function (PF) or pain interference (PI) metrics administered by computerized adaptive testing were included. Negative binomial regressions were used to compare PRO scores to PG overall satisfaction and PG satisfaction with care provider, adjusting for patient characteristics. Results were reported as dissatisfaction score ratios, which represented the amount of PG dissatisfaction associated with a 10-point increase in PROMIS PF or PI. Of the 3984 new patient visits, only 441 completed the PG survey (11.3% response rate). Results: Ceiling effects were seen with PG data: 64% of patients reported perfect satisfaction with care provider and 27% had perfect overall satisfaction. Higher function on the PROMIS PF was weakly associated with increased overall satisfaction (ratio = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99, P = .039) and increased satisfaction with care provider (ratio = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92, P = .019). However, pain (PROMIS PI) was not associated with overall satisfaction or with satisfaction with care provider. Conclusions: Based on our data here, patient satisfaction was weakly related to patient-reported function but not pain interference among this subset of new patients presenting to a foot and ankle clinic. Given our essentially negative findings, further study is needed to determine which aspects of the PG satisfaction and PROMIS scores track similarly. Further, our findings add to the growing literature showcasing limitations of the PG tool, including low response rates and notable ceiling effects. If satisfaction metrics and patient-reported outcomes capture differing aspects of the patient experience, we need to better understand how that influences the measurement of health care quality and value. Level of Evidence: Level III, comparative study.