PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8667321

Frustrating patient visits.

P Milgrom·T Cullen·C Whitney·L Fiset·D Conrad·T Getz
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study, part of a national mail survey of dentist malpractice liability claims, reports the reliability and validity of a new 22-item instrument measuring frustrating patient visits. METHODS: The items were subjected to factor analysis and subscales constructed. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Validity was assessed by comparing subscale scores to self-reports of satisfaction and liability claims. RESULTS: Factor analysis revealed four subscales representing unpleasant feelings, lack of communication, compliance, and practice organization (alpha = 0.60-0.86). Compliance was the most important factor. Subscale scores were related to satisfaction with practice and the proportion of patient visits in the practice that were frustrating to the dentist. Dentists who reported frustrating patient visits as quite typical of their practices were more likely to have had a malpractice liability claim within the last five years. CONCLUSION: This instrument may be of value in detecting patient-dentist communication difficulties that are the precursor to liability claims.

Explore related subjects

CommunicationDentist-Patient RelationsEmotionsFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFrustrationGeneral Practice, DentalHumansInsurance, LiabilityJob SatisfactionMaleMalpracticePatient CompliancePersonal SatisfactionPractice Management, DentalReproducibility of ResultsSelf-AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesComparative StudyJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P Milgrom, T Cullen, C Whitney, L Fiset, D Conrad, T Getz. 1996. Frustrating patient visits.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1996.tb02388.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Information-sharing among couples considering multifetal pregnancy reduction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the information-sharing strategies of couples considering fetal reduction, and the impact of these strategies on the chances of encountering hostility in their social networks. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design of semistructured qualitative interviews, coded with respect to sharing strategies and level of personally directed hostility encountered. SETTING: Multiple Pregnancy Management Program, Comprehensive Genetics, New York, New York. PATIENT(S) AND INTERVENTION(S): Fifty women and their partners who were making a first visit to our maternal-fetal management facility, in order to consider the possibility of multifetal reduction as a pregnancy-management strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Development of information-sharing strategies, and the chances of encountering personally directed hostility regarding multifetal reduction associated with more and less selective strategies. RESULT(S): Four information-sharing strategies emerged from the analysis. Two of these strategies were relatively open (extended network, and both parents). Two other strategies were relatively selective (qualified family and friends, and defended relationship). The selective strategies were significantly less likely to encounter to encounter personally directed hostility (odds ratio, 3.88; 95% confidence intervals, 0.87-17.30). CONCLUSION(S): Selective sharing of information for couples considering multifetal prgnancy reduction is a potentially useful strategy for moderating potentially stressful relationships in their social networks. Clinics should find a way of integrating the discussion of selective sharing into their clinic's cultural repertoire of patient-support services.

Communication↗