Skip to main content

Table 3 Association of element use with patient satisfaction (N = 246)

From: Medical student use of communication elements and association with patient satisfaction: a prospective observational pilot study

 

% Student encounter would make choose ED again

% Student encounter would make refer loved one to ED

% Rate student’s overall communication skill = 5 (Excellent)

Student did not acknowledge patient by name (n = 96)

89.6

81.2

64.6

Student acknowledged patient by name (n = 150)

90.7

92.0

80.0

P-value

0.780 (0.821)

0.016 (0.014)*

0.011 (0.009)*

Student did not introduce himself/herself by name (n = 23)

95.6

87.0

78.3

Student introduced himself/herself by name (n = 223)

89.7

87.8

73.5

P-value

0.359 (0.390)

0.902 (0.958)

0.623 (0.616)

Student did not describe his/her role as a medical student (n = 104)

85.6

84.6

76.9

Student described his/her role as a medical student (n = 142)

93.7

90.1

71.8

P-value

0.035 (0.038)*

0.198 (0.306)

0.369 (0.298)

Student did not explain any steps in care plan (n = 89)

91.0

84.3

66.3

Student explained some steps in care plan (n = 157)

89.8

89.7

78.3

P-value

0.760 (0.775)

0.209 (0.133)

0.038 (0.067)*

Student did not explain that other providers would see patient (n = 49)

85.7

77.6

63.3

Student explained that other providers would see patient (n = 147)

91.4

90.3

76.6

P-value

0.232 (0.191)

0.015 (0.024)*

0.056 (0.057)

Student did not provide an estimated duration of time for ED stay (n = 231)

90.9

87.0

73.6

Student provided an estimated duration of time for ED stay (n = 15)

80.0

100.0

80.0

P-value

0.167 (0.186)

0.135 (0.133)

0.584 (0.610)

  1. *Statistical significance defined as a P-value < 0.05. The first P-value in each set is derived from Chi Square analysis. The second P-value (in parentheses) is derived from mix effects logistic regression model. Values that are underline/italicized remained significant after multiple comparisons