Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia care: development of a psychometric questionnaire and benchmarking among six hospitals in Switzerland and Austria

Background. We describe the development and comparison of apsychometric questionnaire on patient satisfaction with anaesthesiacare among six hospitals. Methods. We used a rigorous protocol: generation of items, constructionof the pilot questionnaire, pilot study, statistical analysis(construct validity, factor analysis, reliability analysis),compilation of the final questionnaire, main study, repeatedanalysis of construct validity and reliability. We comparedthe mean total problem score and the scores for the dimensions:‘Information/Involvement in decision-making’, and‘Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist’. Theinfluence of potential confounding variables was tested (multiplelinear regression). Results. The average problem score from all hospitals was 18.6%.Most problems are mentioned in the dimensions ‘Information/Involvementin decision-making’ (mean problem score: 30.9%) and ‘Continuityof personal care by anaesthetist’ (mean problem score:32.2%). The overall assessment of the quality of anaesthesiacare was good to excellent in 98.7% of cases. The most importantdimension was ‘Information/Involvement in decision-making’.The mean total problem score was significantly lower for twohospitals than the total mean for all hospitals (significantlyhigher at two hospitals) (P<0.05). Amongst the confoundingvariables considered, age, sex, subjective state of health,type of anaesthesia and level of education had an influenceon the total problem score and the two dimensions mentioned.There were only marginal differences with and without the influenceof the confounding variables for the different hospitals. Conclusions. A psychometric questionnaire on patient satisfactionwith anaesthesia care must cover areas such as patient information,involvement in decision-making, and contact with the anaesthetist.The assessment using summed scores for dimensions is more informativethan a global summed rating. There were significant differencesbetween hospitals. Moreover, the high problem scores indicatea great potential for improvement at all hospitals. Br J Anaesth 2002; 89: 863–72