Table 1.
Characteristics of Study Population
Characteristic | Year 1 | Year 2 Seminar | Year 2 Seminar/Letter | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|
N | 376 | 227 | 210 | |
Mean age, y | 65 | 65 | 65 | NS |
Female, % | 48 | 52.2 | 50.7 | NS |
Median y followed in clinic | 4 | 4 | 4 | NS |
Told by MD of change, % | 70.5 | 77.8 | 78.4 | .01 |
Told name of new doctor, % | 76 | 75.8 | 99.5 | * |
Want another visit to discuss MD's departure, % | 24.2 | 18.0 | 15.1 | .01 |
Want another visit to follow up on tests, % | 42.5 | 25.1 | 23.1 | <.0001 |
Feel MD could have done more to ease change, % | 18.2 | 15.5 | 9.4 | .005 |
Expressed feelings to MD, % | 69.3 | 60.8 | 59.2 | <.05 |
MD discussed feelings, % | 53.0 | 58.8 | 57.2 | NS |
Felt better after discussion, % | 91.0 | 91.3 | 96.0 | NS |
Opinion of institution, mean† | 4.4 | 4.5 | 4.5 | NS |
Satisfaction with transfer, mean | 3.8 | 4.1 | 4.5 | .0006 |
Very satisfied, %† | 46.8 | 60.3 | 72.3 | <.0001 |
Somewhat satisfied, % | 10.4 | 12.5 | 11.8 | |
Neutral, % | 25.0 | 12.5 | 11.3 | |
Somewhat dissatisfied, % | 11.4 | 8.5 | 3.3 | |
Very dissatisfied, % | 6.4 | 6.2 | 1.4 |
The difference between patients being told the name of the doctor before and after the seminar alone is not significant. The letter was from the new physician, thus clearly providing patients with the name of their new doctor, although one patient apparently failed to notice this.
Measured on 5-point Likert scale.
NS, not significant.