ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient satisfaction

1 dary end points included adverse effects and patient satisfaction.

2 roviders performed exceptionally in terms of patient satisfaction.

3 esthetic and periodontal parameters; and 5) patient satisfaction.

4 sing disincentives for donation and optimize patient satisfaction.

5 ce high levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.

6 but it improved fatigue, appetite loss, and patient satisfaction.

7 rol, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction.

8 t coverage was significantly associated with patient satisfaction.

9 mortality were associated with high overall patient satisfaction.

10 mission (P = 0.056) were not found to affect patient satisfaction.

11 ired hypoxic ventilatory drive and decreased patient satisfaction.

12 ficantly lower hypoglycaemia risk and better patient satisfaction.

13 e advantages of reducing time and increasing patient satisfaction.

14 es of hospital and nursing home quality; and patient satisfaction.

15 ast possible while achieving high individual patient satisfaction.

16 uous scars and result in decreased long-term patient satisfaction.

17 ed to cosmetic outcome, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.

18 prevention and control, quality of life, and patient satisfaction.

19 e utilization, with no difference in pain or patient satisfaction.

20 operative clinic visit with a high degree of patient satisfaction.

21 lay clinical decisions, and reduce staff and patient satisfaction.

22 into account when defining success based on patient satisfaction.

23 nstruction is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction.

24 , peri-implant soft tissue, prosthetics, and patient satisfaction.

25 lay clinical decisions, and reduce staff and patient satisfaction.

26 and ethnicity-specific follow-up rates, and patient satisfaction.

27 impact of different aspects of disclosure on patient satisfaction.

28 ent use, reported durability and safety, and patient satisfaction.

29 vitally important to the overall success and patient satisfaction.

30 reduce the medical care burdens and enhance patient satisfaction.

31 e error or both, may be required to increase patient satisfaction.

32 ased anesthesia: safety, quality of care and patient satisfaction.

33 sed anesthetic techniques and modalities and patient satisfaction.

34 Surgeon specialization is correlated with patient satisfaction.

35 , general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction.

36 y postoperative recovery or a high degree of patient satisfaction.

37 r laser to achieve better results and higher patient satisfaction.

38 , general health status, work disability, or patient satisfaction.

39 in a diverse patient population in terms of patient satisfaction.

40 nses is a safe adjunct treatment to increase patient satisfaction.

41 to provide optimal operating conditions and patient satisfaction.

42 differences were observed in UDVA, UIVA, and patient satisfaction.

43 care and can lead to improved adherence and patient satisfaction.

44 e favored based upon recovery parameters and patient satisfaction.

45 y, pain treatment-related complications, and patient satisfaction.

46 d has improved access to care, outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

47 outcome, health-related quality of life, and patient satisfaction.

48 gh levels of both spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.

49 ed quality improvement initiatives targeting patient satisfaction.

50 days, length of stay, cosmetic outcome, and patient satisfaction.

51 t- and long-term postoperative morbidity and patient satisfaction.

52 ed with low trial withdrawal rate and better patient satisfaction.

53 promoting patient adherence to treatment and patient satisfaction.

54 y of life, pain, ankle motion, mobility, and patient satisfaction.

55 and hyperlipidemia), functional status, and patient satisfaction.

56 good functional outcome in addition to high patient satisfaction.

57 ed waiting times to have a greater impact on patient satisfaction.

58 ity, complications, health resource use, and patient satisfaction.

59 wer access complications, cost, and improved patient satisfaction.

60 nces with a high level of visual quality and patient satisfaction.

61 ocular adverse events, cost per patient and patient satisfaction.

62 ubjective questionnaires were used to assess patients' satisfaction.

63 (d) Is there good patient satisfaction?

64 rs, such as staff sickness (-0.12, 0.37) and patient satisfaction (-0.06, 0.64), were not.

65 use (-0.37 [-0.54 to -0.20]), and increased patient satisfaction (1.09 [0.51 to 1.68]), but length o

66 cancer program status, with four domains of patient satisfaction: (1) the surgical decision, (2) dec

67 The program has been met with high patient satisfaction (4.95 of 5).

68 ppetite loss (-24 v 2 points; P = .003), and patient satisfaction (5.4 v 2.0 points; P = .001) in fav

69 he quality of hospital facilities (55%), and patient satisfaction (54%).

70 rter in hospitals with the highest levels of patient satisfaction (7.1 days vs 7.7 days, P < 0.001).

71 ndicators, process-of-care quality measures, patient satisfaction), 7 found no association between li

72 VAN-G mean global index for overall level of patient satisfaction (72 [95% CI, 70-73]; n = 330) compa

73 ls vs 0.53 +/- 0.35 decimals (P = .259), and patient satisfaction 9.3 +/- 0.9 vs 9.2 +/- 1.1 (P = .64

74 Federal policymakers have made patient satisfaction a core measure for the way hospital

75 We report the visual outcomes and patient satisfaction after bilateral implantation of a b

76 Treatment setting was not associated with patient satisfaction after controlling for other factors

77 d to shed light on the clinical sequelae and patient satisfaction after dental implant removal (IR).

78 ctural and functional outcome parameters and patient satisfaction after implantation of this new arti

79 physical and psychological consequences and patient satisfaction after left cardiac sympathetic dene

80 were lesion response, cosmetic results, and patient satisfaction after the intervention.RESULTS Our

81 Hospitals with high patient satisfaction also had a higher composite score f

82 Mean patient satisfaction also increased by 1.83 points (95%

83 d results in good visual outcomes, with high patient satisfaction and a significant improvement in pa

84 of more serious complications are higher and patient satisfaction and ability to return to normal act

85 To reduce patient anxiety and increase patient satisfaction and adherence, oncologists may need

86 The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of l

87 r improved pain control along with increased patient satisfaction and decreased perioperative morbidi

88 o significant relationship was noted between patient satisfaction and either major complication or ho

89 ruction is typically stabilised, we assessed patient satisfaction and functional outcomes (alar cutan

90 ides excellent perioperative care, with high patient satisfaction and improved rehabilitation scores.

91 incontinence treatments yield high levels of patient satisfaction and improvements in quality of life

92 mprove the level of disease control, enhance patient satisfaction and increase effectiveness of preve

93 on in experienced centers, providing greater patient satisfaction and lower complication rates in hig

94 assess the independent relationships between patient satisfaction and measures of surgical efficiency

95 aire (both P <0.001) at both time points for patient satisfaction and perceived improvement but not h

96 bined with reconstruction may lead to better patient satisfaction and quality of life.

97 reatment and crisis resolution teams improve patient satisfaction and reduce hospital use in some cir

98 Core needle biopsy increases patient satisfaction and reduces the cost of diagnosis a

99 Studies emphasizing patient satisfaction and refractive visual outcomes have

100 gMAR > 0.1), with best VA at 60 cm; and high patient satisfaction and spectacle independence 3 months

101 as well as patient risk factors for dry eye, patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes can be maximi

102 The relationship between patient satisfaction and surgical quality is unclear for

103 We found no association between patient satisfaction and the individual culture domains

104 need to increase lung transplant successes, patient satisfaction and to improve mortality rates.

105 It may increase patients' satisfaction and lower the cost of wound care.

106 Patients' satisfaction and spectacle independence were e

107 patient-physician communication can increase patients' satisfaction and their use of preventive servi

108 back pain episodes or time between episodes, patient satisfaction, and adverse effects.

109 risk factors on surgical complication rates, patient satisfaction, and anxiety.

110 Secondary outcomes were change in BP, patient satisfaction, and BP control at 18 months (6 mon

111 ates, activity pain scores, activity scores, patient satisfaction, and cosmesis scores.

112 at might include mortality, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and cost.

113 ing increased rates of job turnover, reduced patient satisfaction, and decreased quality of care.

114 while maintaining quality outcomes, safety, patient satisfaction, and employee satisfaction.

115 o using continuous positive airway pressure, patient satisfaction, and health care costs.

116 (infection and recurrence), operative time, patient satisfaction, and intraoperative and postoperati

117 he improvement of asthma symptoms, increased patient satisfaction, and more importantly, a decrease i

118 imaging as manifested in clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and overall system savings.

119 y outcomes include efficacy of pain control, patient satisfaction, and refill requests.

120 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making.

121 Halos and glare experienced, levels of patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence achieve

122 igate refractive and visual acuity outcomes, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence at 3 mo

123 Visual and refractive performance, patient satisfaction, and spectacle independence were ev

124 atients, promoting easier scheduling, higher patient satisfaction, and, importantly, higher image qua

125 shed but have demonstrated feasibility, high patient satisfaction, and, in some cases, cost savings.

126 tors; 8) quality of information; 9) level of patient satisfaction; and 10) QoL.

127 tem Short Form for Veterans [SF-36V] score), patient satisfaction, antidepressant use, and health car

128 onal surveys of cost, referral processes and patient satisfaction are in progress in the UK.

129 at result in greater safety, efficiency, and patient satisfaction are increasing, including evaluatio

130 Safety, quality, and patient satisfaction are not only defined by the inciden

131 ontrary, gas reflux and gastric belching and patient satisfaction are similar for both procedures.

132 ure, and contour of treatment sites; and (8) patient satisfaction at 10 years.

133 ry and questionnaires on bowel functions and patient satisfaction at the study baseline and in each s

134 Concerning patient satisfaction, at the last survey time point, 74%

135 sk factors, comorbidities, side-effects, and patient satisfaction by means of shared decisions.

136 st sensitivity (CS) by Pelli-Robson test and patient satisfaction by National Eye Institute Refractiv

137 ls of lower morbidity, unlimited supply, and patient satisfaction, CM appears to be a suitable substi

138 S was not associated with increased VFQoL or patient satisfaction compared with the RMS group.

139 patient safety issues, function, knowledge, patient satisfaction, confidence in care received, menta

140 odel of customer satisfaction and retention, patient satisfaction could serve as an innovative, patie

141 terms of wound morbidity, healing, pain, and patient satisfaction, data from recent large clinical tr

142 acy and safety may facilitate an increase in patient satisfaction, decreased negative health conseque

143 evaluate for variables associated with high patient satisfaction (defined as hospitals that scored a

144 t far, intermediate, and near distance; high patient satisfaction despite some optical phenomena; and

145 Quality of life and overall patient satisfaction did not differ significantly betwee

146 Cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction did not show any difference between

147 ar, with no differences in heartburn scores, patient satisfaction, dilatations, and reoperation rate.

148 e mortality, health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, disease knowledge, and self-effica

149 tudy is designed to examine safety, cost and patient satisfaction during 12 months follow-up.

150 et share, positive net margins, and improved patient satisfaction during the period of measurement.

151 als for any clinical parameter tested or for patient satisfaction except PD on the mesial side of the

152 Four program operation metrics (patient satisfaction, eyeglass remakes, disease detectio

153 struction improves self-perception, and thus patient satisfaction following mastectomy.

154 For safety, quality, and patient satisfaction, further research is needed to deve

155 ics, institutions in the highest quartile of patient satisfaction had the higher process of care perf

156 arket share, length of stay, net margin, and patient satisfaction have been gathered and compared wit

157 nal data, we examined if hospitals with high patient satisfaction have lower levels of performance on

158 Side effects and patient satisfaction have not been systematically analyz

159 Outcomes impacting patient satisfaction, improved adaptation, and enhanced

160 ed in more patient care efficiency, enhanced patient satisfaction, improved margin for the hospital,

161 d improvement (based on various scales), and patient satisfaction in care received.

162 omes, subjective quality of vision (QoV) and patient satisfaction in eyes with very high myopia (VHM)

163 Patient satisfaction in the hospital and community clini

164 s, by complying with such wishes, can affect patient satisfaction in the last days of life.

165 grams after PCI has the potential to improve patient satisfaction, increase bed availability, and red

166 eased nurse-reported care quality, decreased patient satisfaction; increased adverse events; increase

167 Successes were reported in increasing patient satisfaction, increasing documentation of pain i

168 However, it remains unclear whether patient satisfaction is an accurate marker of high-quali

169 Patient satisfaction is an increasingly common feature o

170 Patient satisfaction is an increasingly important compon

171 Although patient satisfaction is increasingly viewed as an import

172 uality of recovery (directly associated with patient satisfaction) is an important clinical outcome m

173 e significantly associated with high overall patient satisfaction: large hospitals, high surgical vol

174 The criteria at patient satisfaction level were discomfort and paresthes

175 Patient satisfaction may have direct effects on retentio

176 There is broad concern that performance on patient satisfaction may have little or even a negative

177 Patient satisfaction may provide information about a hos

178 Different methods of evaluation of patient satisfaction may yield different results and the

179 ient satisfaction, we evaluated whether high patient satisfaction measured by HCAHPS (Hospital Consum

180 The primary outcome was patient satisfaction, measured by a survey administered

181 as well as emerging evidence on the role of patient satisfaction, must be used to guide improvements

182 Nonetheless, IR does not seem to affect patients' satisfaction nor their quality of life, though

183 ty of Life Questionnaire C30, 0 to 100), and patient satisfaction (NRS, 0 to 10).

184 d soft tissue changes, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction of immediately placed single-tooth

185 ieve this workload, but the safety, cost and patient satisfaction of such an extended role for nurses

186 on cardiac process measures also have lower patient satisfaction on average, suggesting that these h

187 There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction or functional status in late follow

188 There was no significant change in patient satisfaction (OR 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.33; P = 0.

189 There was no significant difference in patients' satisfaction (p = 0.164).

190 itment, professional commitment, job stress, patient satisfaction, patient-nurse ratios, social capit

191 mbination therapy has a beneficial effect on patient satisfaction, perceived improvement, and reducti

192 ons than CLC without significant benefits in patient satisfaction, postoperative pain and QOL.

193 a growing emphasis on cost, efficiency, and patient satisfaction, propofol alone or in combination w

194 Hospitals with a high level of patient satisfaction provided clinical care that was som

195 jor surgical procedures, hospitals with high patient satisfaction provided more efficient care and we

196 Eight of 11 trials reported that patient satisfaction, quality of life, or both was bette

197 fferences at 2 years after reconstruction in patient satisfaction, quality-of-life, or complication r

198 and Hand outcome measure, or QuickDASH, and patient satisfaction questionnaires were administered.

199 ded concentration of melanin and hemoglobin, patient satisfaction questionnaires, clinical photograph

200 exual function after CaP treatment with high patient satisfaction rates.

201 s of incontinence severity, quality of life, patient satisfaction, rates of positive provocative stre

202 at showed significantly higher than expected patient satisfaction ratings.

203 Additionally, patient satisfaction regarding the implant treatment was

204 ese hospitals fare in other domains, such as patient satisfaction, remains unknown.

205 residency redesign will have on measures of patient satisfaction, resident and intern (trainee) sati

206 The recovery time, patient satisfaction, safety and the efficacy and cost b

207 The patient satisfaction score had a mean of 8.5 (median 9.2

208 Of the 180 hospitals, the overall mean patient satisfaction score was 68.0% (first quartile mea

209 erform one of these 6 procedures, the median patient satisfaction score was 69.5% (interquartile rang

210 as also significantly associated with higher patient satisfaction scores (P < 0.01).

211 monstrated a significant association between patient satisfaction scores and several objective measur

212 0-day readmission rates, length of stay, and patient satisfaction scores for common medical condition

213 0-day readmission rates, length of stay, and patient satisfaction scores for common medical condition

214 onal payers announced they would begin using patient satisfaction scores to adjust reimbursements for

215 Hospital patient satisfaction scores were compared with hospital

216 postoperative outcomes based on a hospital's patient satisfaction scores.

217 and trainees as well as improved Press Ganey patient satisfaction scores.

218 d consumption, incidence of hypotension, and patient satisfaction seemed to be in favor of preperiton

219 Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient in

220 stic performance, one study also reported on patient satisfaction, showing that 78% of patients prefe

221 Previous patient satisfaction studies have been subjective.

222 reductions, superior BP control, and higher patient satisfaction than UC.

223 PRE-ACT was also associated with greater patient satisfaction than was NCI text alone.

224 easures with greater credibility are overall patient satisfaction, time to return to work and long-te

225 There are limited published studies on patient satisfaction towards endoscopy from Asian countr

226 d effects for patients may include decreased patient satisfaction, trust, or confidence in their prov

227 Patient satisfaction was >90% for both procedures.

228 The overall post-reoperative patient satisfaction was 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 and 3 o

229 Patient satisfaction was also evaluated with a questionn

230 Patient satisfaction was assessed using close-ended, mul

231 Patient satisfaction was assessed.

232 f management (R = 0.223 [P = .23]); however, patient satisfaction was associated with the individual

233 Patient satisfaction was based on two validated items, o

234 Patient satisfaction was explored using face-to-face, se

235 Patient satisfaction was found to be higher with oxycodo

236 Finally, patient satisfaction was high and costs were less than w

237 In general, patient satisfaction was high at the study baseline and

238 Overall patient satisfaction was high with the majority of patie

239 ually firm" and CTG + CAF sites "more firm." Patient satisfaction was high, with no statistical diffe

240 The patient satisfaction was high.

241 Likewise, patient satisfaction was high.

242 iting times to assessment and diagnosis, and patient satisfaction was high.

243 Patient satisfaction was independent of hospital complia

244 Patient satisfaction was maintained with the CBE program

245 Patient satisfaction was measured by using the decisiona

246 Evidence on patient satisfaction was mixed and insufficient.

247 In addition, patient satisfaction was not associated with a hospital'

248 Patient satisfaction was not associated with performance

249 Patient satisfaction was recorded and the Oral Health Im

250 multivariable analysis, increased change in patient satisfaction was related to demographic and opti

251 Patient satisfaction was similar after both procedures.

252 treatment cessation for a long term and the patient satisfaction was very high.

253 Prescription rate of inhaled steroids and patients satisfaction was higher in the facilities of sp

254 With resources and efforts directed at patient satisfaction, we evaluated whether high patient

255 spital's performance on process measures and patient satisfaction, we noted discordance between these

256 ri-implant parameters, esthetic indices, and patient satisfaction were also assessed.

257 r chamber depth, anterior chamber angle, and patient satisfaction were assessed.

258 peri-implant tissues, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction were considered.

259 Four contributing factors to patient satisfaction were identified: ample consultation

260 Provider and patient satisfaction were measured using 5-point Likert

261 Rate of adverse events, quality of life, and patient satisfaction were not significantly different be

262 se, lower esophageal sphincter pressure, and patient satisfaction were similar after 180-degree LAF a

263 atation rate, reoperation rate, PPI use, and patient satisfaction were similar.

264 Questionnaire (FIQL)], bowel diary data, and patients' satisfaction were assessed before and after im

265 l cell loss than DSAEK and a higher level of patient satisfaction when assessed at 6 months after sur

266 mbrace health outcomes, quality of care, and patient satisfaction, while failure to consider language

267 o had a small but significant improvement in patient satisfaction with anticoagulation therapy (P=0.0

268 ected at low rates, and cosmetic outcome and patient satisfaction with breast appearance were high wi

269 liative care improves symptom management and patient satisfaction with care and reduces hospital cost

270 In SEM analyses, patient satisfaction with care influences retention in H

271 t cancer indirectly through their effects on patient satisfaction with care.

272 al donor risk, and with benefits of improved patient satisfaction with cosmetic and overall outcomes.

273 onstruction at any time after mastectomy and patient satisfaction with different aspects of the recon

274 Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with information and care.

275 Improvements in patient satisfaction with information received demonstra

276 This study evaluated the program's impact on patient satisfaction with information received.

277 ks have showed prolonged analgesia and great patient satisfaction with low side effects.

278 urther optimizing outcomes and improving the patient satisfaction with multifocal intraocular lenses

279 mes included health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction with pharmacy services, and total d

280 icant difference in refills requested, or in patient satisfaction with postoperative pain control.

281 The ESPIA questionnaire to assess patient satisfaction with respect to AIT treatment prese

282 al, was inexpensive and able to achieve high patient satisfaction with respect to information about g

283 tent of discussion about it with 3 outcomes: patient satisfaction with surgery decisions, receipt of

284 ce without compromising the efficiency of or patient satisfaction with the clinical encounter.

285 Patient satisfaction with the health care experience has

286 Patient satisfaction with the home monitoring program wa

287 ore efficient use of facilities and enhanced patient satisfaction with the improved postoperative pai

288 ent of patient interviews (n = 101) reported patient satisfaction with the information they received,

289 Patient satisfaction with the overall result was 8.91+/-

290 Patient satisfaction with the tool was captured.

291 s is known about how these factors influence patient satisfaction with their care.

292 of constipation, trial withdrawal rate, and patient satisfaction with treatment.

293 skills to the clinical practice and improved patients' satisfaction with care.

294 staff can improve clinicians' attitudes and patients' satisfaction with care.

295 (MRI), and orthopaedic surgeon consultation; patients' satisfaction with care; physical activity leve

296 Patients' satisfaction with surgery, quality of life, an

297 her secondary efficacy end points, including patients' satisfaction with their bowel function and tre

298 erstanding, but this may come at the cost of patients' satisfaction with them.

299 rns of use, experiences with clinicians, and patients' satisfaction with treatment decisions for wome

300 se include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden.