↓ Skip to main content

Do 360-degree Feedback Survey Results Relate to Patient Satisfaction Measures?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 Mendeley
Title
Do 360-degree Feedback Survey Results Relate to Patient Satisfaction Measures?
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11999-014-3981-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michiel G. J. S. Hageman, David C. Ring, Paul J. Gregory, Harry E. Rubash, Larry Harmon

Abstract

There is evidence that feedback from 360-degree surveys-combined with coaching-can improve physician team performance and quality of patient care. The Physicians Universal Leadership-Teamwork Skills Education (PULSE) 360 is one such survey tool that is used to assess work colleagues' and coworkers' perceptions of a physician's leadership, teamwork, and clinical practice style. The Clinician & Group-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CG-CAHPS), developed by the US Department of Health and Human Services to serve as the benchmark for quality health care, is a survey tool for patients to provide feedback that is based on their recent experiences with staff and clinicians and soon will be tied to Medicare-based compensation of participating physicians. Prior research has indicated that patients and coworkers often agree in their assessment of physicians' behavioral patterns. The goal of the current study was to determine whether 360-degree, also called multisource, feedback provided by coworkers could predict patient satisfaction/experience ratings. A significant relationship between these two forms of feedback could enable physicians to take a more proactive approach to reinforce their strengths and identify any improvement opportunities in their patient interactions by reviewing feedback from team members. An automated 360-degree software process may be a faster, simpler, and less resource-intensive approach than telephoning and interviewing patients for survey responses, and it potentially could facilitate a more rapid credentialing or quality improvement process leading to greater fiscal and professional development gains for physicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Bangladesh 1 <1%
Unknown 211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 19%
Researcher 26 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Student > Bachelor 14 7%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 55 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 29%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Psychology 9 4%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 65 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2019.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#4,750
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,971
of 267,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#66
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.