Table 2.
Selected Satisfaction Ratings and Reports of 804 Injured Workers
| Measure | Number (%) |
|---|---|
| Initial care obtained with little difficulty | 693 (86.2) |
| Follow-up care obtained with little difficulty (n =681) | 602 (90.8) |
| Timing of referral was appropriate (n =402)a | 282 (70.1) |
| Specialty care rated as excellent (n =453) | 242 (53.4) |
| Provider satisfaction ratings (very satisfied)b | |
| Provider was able to determine what was wrong and what needed to be done to treat injury+ | 585 (72.8) |
| Provider was thorough and gave careful treatment+ | 595 (74.0) |
| Provider directed patient to most effective treatment for injury+ | 554 (68.9) |
| Provider listened carefully and understood patient's concerns# | 619 (77.0) |
| Provider was courteous and treated patient with respect# | 700 (87.1) |
| Provider explained nature of injury# | 611 (76.0) |
| Provider explained treatment needed for injury# | 577 (71.8) |
| Technical quality index (very satisfied) | 569 (70.8) |
| Interpersonal quality index (very satisfied) | 596 (74.1) |
| Patient was very satisfied with how care was coordinated | 476 (59.2) |
| Physician understood patient's job duties and work setting | 287 (35.7) |
| Self-reported recovery status | |
| Fully recovered | 226 (28.1) |
| 75% recovered | 293 (36.4) |
| 50% recovered | 125 (15.5) |
| 25% recovered | 50 (6.2) |
| Not recovered | 101 (12.6) |
| Patient rated overall treatment experience as excellent | 307 (38.2) |
| On disability at 6 or 12 months after claim received (n =536) | 72 (13.4) |
aFifty-one patients self-referred to a specialist and hence did not provide information on timing of referral.
bRefers to the physician or health care provider who provided most of the care received by the patient for his or her injury.
+Item used to create technical quality index.
#Item used to create interpersonal quality index.