ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient satisfaction

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

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

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

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

5 mortality were associated with high overall patient satisfaction.

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

7 ired hypoxic ventilatory drive and decreased patient satisfaction.

8 ficantly lower hypoglycaemia risk and better patient satisfaction.

9 e advantages of reducing time and increasing patient satisfaction.

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

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

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

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

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

15 into account when defining success based on patient satisfaction.

16 nstruction is associated with high levels of patient satisfaction.

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

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

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

20 impact of different aspects of disclosure on patient satisfaction.

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

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

23 vitally important to the overall success and patient satisfaction.

24 reduce the medical care burdens and enhance patient satisfaction.

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

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

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

28 sed anesthetic techniques and modalities and patient satisfaction.

29 Surgeon specialization is correlated with patient satisfaction.

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

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

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

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

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

35 to provide optimal operating conditions and patient satisfaction.

36 ior quality of recovery, quality of life and patient satisfaction.

37 o predict improvement in Roland function and patient satisfaction.

38 effects, patient comfort, and high levels of patient satisfaction.

39 eal toricity, or increased pupil size reduce patient satisfaction.

40 y, and re-treatment can lead to a decline in patient satisfaction.

41 better clinical outcome measures and higher patient satisfaction.

42 accommodative lens technology should enhance patient satisfaction.

43 egree of safety, minimal morbidity, and high patient satisfaction.

44 perceived reduction in morbidity and overall patient satisfaction.

45 ate, fewer observed morbidities, and overall patient satisfaction.

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

47 promoting patient adherence to treatment and patient satisfaction.

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

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

50 good functional outcome in addition to high patient satisfaction.

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

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

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

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

55 gh levels of both spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.

56 dary end points included adverse effects and patient satisfaction.

57 roviders performed exceptionally in terms of patient satisfaction.

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

59 sing disincentives for donation and optimize patient satisfaction.

60 ce high levels of spectacle independence and patient satisfaction.

61 ed quality improvement initiatives targeting patient satisfaction.

62 ubjective questionnaires were used to assess patients' satisfaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71 Patient satisfaction, a growing demand for cost-effectiv

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

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

74 Quality of vision and patient satisfaction after LASIK can be difficult to ass

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

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

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

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

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

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

81 d find characteristics that lead to improved patient satisfaction and better quality of vision.

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

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

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

85 n significantly associated with a variety of patient satisfaction and health outcomes.

86 miting these variables may lead to increased patient satisfaction and higher quality of vision after

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

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

89 in practice settings suggest improvements in patient satisfaction and in some areas of utilization.

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

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

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

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

94 vances in analgesia/anesthesia have improved patient satisfaction and perioperative outcomes.

95 f special interest to patients (for example, patient satisfaction and quality of life) and policymake

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

97 dence that prophylactic antiemetics increase patient satisfaction and reduce costs in selected cases,

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

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

100 Studies emphasizing patient satisfaction and refractive visual outcomes have

101 ry surgery operating rooms while maintaining patient satisfaction and safety.

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

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

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

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

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

107 e were no significant differences in overall patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat endoscopy

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

109 Patients' satisfaction and spectacle independence were e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

118 nstrated considerable improvement in access, patient satisfaction, and finances.

119 and equivalent levels of patient adherence, patient satisfaction, and health care cost.

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

121 ment protocol, lower patient anxiety, higher patient satisfaction, and higher patient accrual.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

157 , plaque, inflammation, esthetics, pain, and patient satisfaction following periodontal treatment of

158 , plaque, inflammation, esthetics, pain, and patient satisfaction following periodontal treatment of

159 The success rates, long-term durability, and patient satisfaction for the artificial urinary sphincte

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

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

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

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

164 Side effects and patient satisfaction have not been systematically analyz

165 ects and fewer medications can help increase patient satisfaction, improve compliance, maintain graft

166 Outcomes impacting patient satisfaction, improved adaptation, and enhanced

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

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

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

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

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

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

173 Patient satisfaction is an increasingly common feature o

174 Patient satisfaction is an increasingly important compon

175 Although patient satisfaction is increasingly viewed as an import

176 Length of stay is short and patient satisfaction is very high with extended follow-u

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

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

179 The criteria at patient satisfaction level were discomfort and paresthes

180 Patient satisfaction may have direct effects on retentio

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

182 Patient satisfaction may provide information about a hos

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

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

185 Patient satisfaction measures (composite score, physicia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

203 at showed significantly higher than expected patient satisfaction ratings.

204 Additionally, patient satisfaction regarding the implant treatment was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

218 Previous patient satisfaction studies have been subjective.

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

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

221 retical advantages of DEX to improve overall patient satisfaction, the two agents provide similar res

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

223 nsidered the control of pain, esthetics, and patient satisfaction to be "extremely important" outcome

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

225 kelihood of seeking legal advice, ratings of patient satisfaction, trust and emotional reaction in re

226 elihood of changing physicians and increased patient satisfaction, trust, and positive emotional resp

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

228 Patient satisfaction was >90% for both procedures.

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

230 Patient satisfaction was also evaluated with a questionn

231 Patient satisfaction was assessed using close-ended, mul

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 Likewise, patient satisfaction was high.

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

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

250 Patient satisfaction was similar after both procedures.

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

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

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

254 inal (GI) medication, tolerance to food, and patient satisfaction were also assessed.

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

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

257 mation, function, furcation involvement, and patient satisfaction were considered to be "very importa

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 Absence of pain, esthetics, and patient satisfaction were outcome measures considered "e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

273 Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with information and care.

274 Improvements in patient satisfaction with information received demonstra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

282 en hospital and surgeon procedure volume and patient satisfaction with surgery.

283 -physician contact was associated with lower patient satisfaction with that contact and patient nonad

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

285 h-related quality-of-life scores, subsequent patient satisfaction with the Dental Program, and resolu

286 Patient satisfaction with the health care experience has

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 Patients' satisfaction with surgery, quality of life, an

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

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

298 lso had statistically significant effects on patients' satisfaction with treatment (effect size=0.51,

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.