Education Research: Physician identification and patient satisfaction on an academic neurology inpatient service

ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between neurology inpatient satisfaction and (1) number of physicians involved in the patient's care and (2) patients’ ability to identify their physicians.MethodsA 10-item questionnaire addressing patient satisfaction and identification of physicians on the care team was administered to patients admitted to an academic, tertiary care, inpatient neurology service from May 1 to October 31, 2012. We hypothesized higher satisfaction among patients having fewer physicians on the care team and among patients able to identify their physicians.ResultsA total of 652 patients were enrolled. An average of 3.9 (range 3–8) physicians were involved in each patient's care. Patients were able to correctly identify on average 2.4 (60.7%) physicians involved in their care. Patients who were very satisfied correctly identified a larger percentage of physicians involved in their care (63.8% vs 50.7%, p < 0.001), were more likely to identify a physician who knew them best (94.3% vs 43.6%, p < 0.001) and who was “in charge” of their care (94.1% vs 57.6%, p < 0.001), and were more likely to have private insurance (82.8% vs 70.5%, p < 0.001) and fewer physicians involved in their care (3.84 vs 4.06, p = 0.02).ConclusionsNeurology inpatients’ ability to identify physicians involved in their care is associated with patient satisfaction. Strategies to enhance patient satisfaction might target improving physician identification, reducing actual or perceived disparities in care based on payer status, and reducing handoffs or conducting handoffs at the bedside.

CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC ASPECTS OF STUDIES ON BACTERIAL VIRUSES

MY GREAT pleasure in addressing this body stems in no small part from the fact that this occasion is almost the first indication I have had in 10 years that others besides my immediate chiefs at the Children's Hospital know why I am in a Department of Pediatrics. As many of you are aware, I am a biochemist. It is apparently a surprise to others of my profession that infectious disease is a problem of concern to both pediatricians and biochemists. This attitude, reflecting a tacit belief that the job of a biochemist is to study some esoteric compound, its origin or its fate, rather than chemical aspects of a clearly defined biologic problem is widely prevalent and can be a serious deterrent to the solution of many important medical problems. This is true in the sense that this view affects the general problem of uniting theoretic and practical work. I recall attending the dedication of a virology laboratory last year in which the guest speaker paid tribute to the contributions of research scientists who solved problems in the process of satisfying their intellectual curiosity, as well as to contributions of the research physician who undertook to solve the more practical aspects of the control of disease. It did not seem to have occurred to the speaker that a research scientist might be interested in doing more than titillating his neurones. And of course, in many instances, the speaker was unfortunately correct, since practicality is often viewed as only the unworthy illegitimate child of science, rather than merely as its natural offspring.