Shi Wen Phan|David Slattery|W. Forred|L. Pajar|A. Cuddeback|Ning Smith
442 PAID-A Randomized Controlled Trial: Distribution of an Informational Brochure to Patients in the ED Waiting Room Does Not Improve Overall Patient Satisfaction
Kaiser Permanente|University of Nevada, Las Vegas|University Medical Center of Southern Nevada|Kaiser Permanente|University of Nevada, Las Vegas|University Medical Center of Southern Nevada|Kaiser Permanente|University of Nevada, Las Vegas|University Medical Center of Southern Nevada|Kaiser Permanente|University of Nevada, Las Vegas|University Medical Center of Southern Nevada|Kaiser Permanente|University of Nevada, Las Vegas|University Medical Center of Southern Nevada|Kaiser Permanente|University of Nevada, Las Vegas|University Medical Center of Southern Nevada
patient satisfaction surveys integral part emergency medicine since 1980s recent studies demonstrated adequate explanation waiting times perception waiting times important factors patient satisfaction study measures effect providing urban county hospital patients informational brochures regarding emergency department wait times patient satisfaction hypothesis test hypothesis providing informational brochure patients waiting room result improved patient satisfaction scores setting urban academic ed 70000 visits per year design randomized double blind controlled trial using consecutive convenience sampling upon registration patients given randomization envelope contained either detailed informational brochure set patient expectations explained common reasons delays identical sham brochure similar pictures labeling contained specific information sham real brochure english spanish patient brought back ed given brief written survey captured demographics asked questions consistent current pressganey questions related nursing satisfaction physician satisfaction perception wait times overall satisfaction primary outcome proportion patients selected good vg highest rating question overall rating care received visit secondary outcome measures included proportion patients selected vg would recommend ed wait time room wait time dr patients left without seen physician perception wait times data entered database analyzed using ncss statistical software sample size calculation using alpha 005 calculated 380 patients arm achieve 85 power detect 10 difference primary outcome measure utilized chi square proportions ttest continuous variables set statistical significance p005 confidence intervals differences crossing zero total 724 patients enrolled study 337 randomized experimental group 387 sham arm statistical difference baseline patient demographics primary measure overall rating vg achieved 100 297 95 ci 248 349 intervention group vs 112 289 95 ci 245 337 control group chisquare 0047 p0839 similarly statistical difference 2 groups secondary outcome measures limitations single institution study county hospital spectrum bias literacy assessed ed providing informational brochure explaining wait times measurable impact patient satisfaction wait time perceptions