REVIEW
Patient satisfaction in emergen cy medicine
C Taylor, J R Benger
...............................................................................................................................
Emerg Med J 2004;21:528–532. doi: 10.1136/emj.2002.003723
A systematic review was undertaken to identify published
evidence relating to patient satisfaction in emergency
medicine. Reviewed papers were divided into those that
identified the factors influencing overall satisfaction in
emergency department patients, and those in which a
specific intervention was evaluated. Patient age and race
influenced satisfaction in some, but not all, studies. Triage
category was strongly correlated with satisfaction, but this
also relates to waiting time. The three most frequently
identified service factors were: interpersonal skills/staff
attitudes; provision of information/explanation; perceived
waiting times. Seven controlled intervention studies were
found. These suggested that increased information on ED
arrival, and training courses designed to improve staff
attitudes and communication, are capable of improvi ng
patient satisfaction. None of the intervention studies looked
specifically at the effect of reducing the perceived waiting
time. Key interventions to improve patient satisfaction will
be those that develop the interpersonal and attitudinal skills
of staff, increase the information provided, and reduce the
perceived waiting time. Future research should use a
mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate
specific interventions.
...........................................................................
See end of article for
authors’ affiliations
.......................
Correspondence to:
Dr J Benger, Academic
Department of Emergency
Care, Emergency
Department, Bristol Royal
Infirmary, Bristol
BS2 8HW, UK;
Jonathan.Benger@
ubht.swest.nhs.uk
Accepted for publication
7 March 2003
.......................
O
ver the past 10 years there has been
increasing interest in ‘‘consumer satisfac-
tion’’ in the NHS, starting with the
Patients’ Charter of 1991, and culminating with
the NHS Plan.
1
The essence of the NHS Plan is to make
patients’ views and interests the driving force
behind reform. Among the core principles of the
plan is the statement that ‘‘quality will not just
be restricted to clinical aspects of care, but
include … the entire patient experience’’. To
show that the service is responding to patient
priorities, every NHS organisation is now
required to publish an annual account of the
views received from patients, and the action
taken as a result.
2
Few clinicians would disagree with the idea
that improving patient satisfaction is a desirable
end in itself. Related benefits may include
improved morale and job satisfaction in emer-
gency department (ED) staff, a reduced tendency
for patients to seek further opinions, and a
reduced incidence of complaints and litigation.
There is also evidence of improved patient
compliance.
34
Improved satisfaction in EDs is
likely to have a significant impact on the
public view of hospital and emergency care in
general.
The aim of this systematic review was to
identify the published evidence relating to
patient satisfaction in emergency medicine,
thereby providing useful information for clin-
icians, and helping to guide future strategies
for assessment and improvement in this area.
METHODS
A literature search was carried out using the
WebSPIRS from SilverPlatter interface, accessed
via the SWICE gateway. The Medline, CINAHL,
EMBASE, ASSIA, and HMIC databases were
searched from January 1990 to January 2002,
using the terms [PATIENT-SATISFACTION and
(‘‘Emergency Department’’ or ‘‘Accident and
Emergency’’ or ‘‘Casualty’’ (TW))].
Papers of potential relevance were retrieved,
and their reference lists searched for additional
relevant material. This process was repeated until
no new information was found.
Reviewed papers were grouped under two
headings:
(1) Research to identify and rank factors influ-
encing overall satisfaction in ED patients.
(2) Intervention studies attempting to improve
patient satisfaction in the ED.
RESULTS
The initial computerised database search identi-
fied 583 papers of potential relevance. Many
papers were found that included measures of
patient satisfaction ‘‘tagged on’’ to a clinical
intervention study, but these tended to show the
acceptability of the intervention, rather than its
effect on satisfaction. Such studies were there-
fore excluded.
The studies reviewed were too heterogeneous
for formal meta-analysis. Nevertheless, the fol-
lowing key points emerged:
Choosing factors to assess
Most papers assessed a variety of service factors,
process of care measures, or patient related
factors chosen from the literature, staff opinions,
or ad hoc by the authors.
The most frequently assessed service factors in
emergency medicine were: perceived and actual
waiting times; explanations/information on mul-
tiple aspects of process and treatment; staff
attitudes; ED environment; perceived standards
of technical care. Table 1 lists the factors assessed
in individual studies, the assessments used, and
a summary of the main findings.
528
www.emjonline.com
Table 1 Summary of factor and global satisfaction assessment studies
Author, year,
and country Factors assessed
Method of assessing
factor satisfaction
Method of assessing
global satisfaction Main findings
Bjorvell and Steig
15
1991 Sweden
Perceived levels of
information on arrival
100 point visual analogue
scale (VAS)
‘‘How do you feel?’’ Increased satisfaction with
respect, general treatment
and staff attitude related to
perceived level of initial
information. p,0.05
‘‘Would you return?’’
100 point VAS scale
Booth et al
31
1992 UK Waiting times 4 point Likert scale and
open-ended questions
N/A Satisfaction levels with
components of waiting times.
‘‘Ideal’’ and target times
derived.
Hansagi et al
6
1992
Sweden
Multiple patient and service
factors, and triage category
Likert scale and
open-ended questions
‘‘Satisfaction with medical
treatment’’
Triage category and age related
to global satisfaction. p,0.001
‘‘Satisfaction with general
care’’
Weighted 4 point scale
Lewis et al
8
1992 Canada
Triage category, nursing care,
physician care, environment,
auxiliary staff, waiting times
and information
3 point Likert scale and
open-ended questions
‘‘Overall satisfaction with
ED visit’’
Separate factor satisfaction
levels given. Poor correlation
between global satisfaction
derived from specific satisfaction
ratings and global satisfaction
on direct questioning. Only
triage category reported as
strongly correlated
Weighted 3 point scale
Maitra et al
16
1992 UK
Waiting times, receptionist
helpful, explanations of
management, information on
delays, interruptions, treatment
discussion with doctor
Modified Likert scale and
open-ended question
‘‘Satisfied’’ or ‘‘not satisfied’’
with outcome of visit
Satisfaction correlates with wait
to see doctor (p,0.003),
doctor’s explanation of
management (p,0.002), total
time in ED (p,0.01)
Dichotomous response
Bursch et al
13
1993 USA
Multiple service factors Likert scale and
open-ended questions
‘‘Overall, how satisfied
with ED care?’’
14 service factors correlated
with global satisfaction. Top five
were: perceived waiting time;
caring nurses; ED staff
organisation; caring doctor;
information given. (r = 0.63 to
0.68)
Unspecified scale
Britten et al
14
1994 UK
None specified to patients.
Twelve main themes identified
from interview transcripts
Frequency and emphasis
in interview transcr ipt
N/A Factors identified as important
are: information; waiting time;
quick pain relief; sensitivity to
personal circumstances;
excessive questions or
examination; a pleasant
environment
Thompson et al
17
1995 USA
Perceived waiting time Likert scale Describe your experience
in the ED.
Perceived wait relative to
expected wait correlates with
overall satisfaction. p,0.001Weighted 4 point scale.
Thompson et al
18
1996 USA
Perceived and actual waiting
times (to see doctor and for
entire visit). Explanation given
of delays, and procedures.
Staff attitudes
Open-ended questions Describe experience. Information and perceived wait
(but not actual wait) correlate
with global satisfaction.
p,0.001
Recommendation
Weighted 4 and 3 point scales
Hall et al
7
1996 USA
Multiple demographic
and service factors
Likert scale and
open-ended questions
Recommendation Nurse and doctor attitudes
(care, courtesy, concern), and
perceived wait interval s
correlate with global
satisfaction. No demographic
factor correlated (including age)
Weighted 5 point scale
Rhee et al
19
1996 USA
Nurse and doctor technical
ability. Nurse and doctor
‘‘bedside manner’’.
Receptionist service.
Perceived wait intervals
5 point Likert scale Rate overall quality (weighted
5 point scale)
Patient perceptions of technical
quality of care (p ,0.001) and
perceived waiting times
(p,0.005) correlate with global
satisfaction, and are more
important than bedside manner
Recommendation (dichotomous)
Bruce et al
32
1998 UK
30 items on nursing care,
environment, ancillary
services and information
3 point Likert scales N/A Primary area of concern was
information about length of
waiting time
Yarnold et al
11
1998
(two part study) USA
Perceived waiting times,
information and explanations,
staff attitudes
Likert scale ‘‘Overall satisfaction’’
(symmetrical 5 point scale
and weighted 4 point scale)
Overall satisfaction levels are
almost perfectly predictable
from ratings of perceived staff
attitudes
Boudreaux et al
12
2000 USA
22 items including registration,
nurse and doctor factors,
waiting times, discharge
instructions and estimated
length of stay
5 point Likert scale Recommendation Caring staff, percepti on of
safety, understanding discharge
instructions, nurse technical skills
and waiting time predict overall
satisfaction. (p,0.05)
Perceptions of care outweighed
demographics and visit
characteristics. Some differences
between predictors of overall
satisfaction and likelihood to
recommend
Overall satisfaction
Patient satisfaction 529
www.emjonline.com
Patient factors that influence satisfaction
Most studies collected data on some ‘‘background variables’’,
such as age, sex, social status, ethnicity, and severity of
illness. Age and race influenced satisfaction in some
studies,
56
but not all.
7
Triage category was strongly correlated
with satisfaction,
568
although this could be viewed as
another indicator of the waiting time.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria varied enormously
between studies, and in some were unspecified. The ‘‘point
of view paradox’’ dictates that as the severity of illness
increases so patient expectations regarding non-clinical
service factors decrease,
9
so it is important to be aware of
the population in which satisfaction is being measured.
Apart from Morgan et al’s survey of Sheffield residents,
10
multicentre studies by Hall
7
and Sun,
5
and Yarnold’s
comparison of an academic and community ED,
11
most
papers reported single centre studies. Table 2 shows the
different survey methods, populations, and response rates. A
few papers sampled the population in the form of a
‘‘census’’—that is, they attempted to enlist every patient
within the study population over the study period. Others
used population sampling, either random, systematic, or by
quota.
Service factors that influence satisfaction
Three broad headings cover the most commonly identified
areas of importance. These are ‘‘interpersonal skills/perceived
staff attitudes’’,
7 10–13
‘‘provision of information/explana-
tion’’,
5 7 13–18
and ‘‘aspects related to waiting times’’, particu-
larly the perceived waiting time in relation to the patient’s
expectation.
7 8 10 12–14 17–19
The relative ranking of specific
service factors in relation to global satisfaction remains
unresolved.
Intervention studies
In total, seven controlled trials that studied satisfaction as a
primary outcome measure were found, with two of these
from the UK. Three assessed whether the provision of general
information to patients on their arrival influenced overall
satisfaction.
20–22
Two of these related to written information,
and one to an informational video. All three demonstrated
improved satisfaction, as well as an improvement in the
perception of other service factors, in the informed groups.
Two studies report improved patient satisfaction as a result
of staff training. In one paper all ED staff underwent
‘‘customer service training’’,
23
while in the other doctors
attended a communication skills workshop.
24
The two UK papers focus on nurse triage,
25
and an
emergency nurse practitioner (ENP) service.
26
Nurse triage
had little effect on patient satisfaction, but a comparison
between traditional ED and ENP care showed that ENP care
led to improved satisfaction with some communication
related service factors.
DISCUSSION
Many problems are inherent in the analysis of satisfaction in
ED patients. Firstly, ‘‘satisfaction’’ is not easy to define,
secondly, methods of quantifying and qualifying satisfaction
are still emerging in emergency medicine, and thirdly,
emergency physicians care for the largest and most diverse
patient population.
Quantifying ‘‘satisfaction’’
Studies aiming to correlate specific factors with ‘‘overall
satisfaction’’ have chosen various tools with which to
measure global and factor satisfaction. Techniques range
from using simple questions with dichotomous answers, to
non-directive interviewing techniques where ‘‘main themes’’
are identified. Direct questions using the word ‘‘satisfaction’’
have been used, or overall satisfaction is extrapolated from
indirect questions such as ‘‘willingness to recommend’’ or
‘‘willingness to return’’.
512
Combined factor satisfaction
scores have also been used to predict overall satisfaction,
15
although this approach has been questioned.
8
Questionnaire validity is difficult to assess, as there is no
‘‘gold standard’’ for patient satisfaction. However, in some
studies patient views have been ‘‘validated’’ against inde-
pendent measures of doctors’ interpersonal skills, commu-
nication styles, and technical proficiency.
27
Response rates
Adequate survey response rates are a challenge to achieve,
and vital for results to be meaningful. Response rates will be
increased by ‘‘on the spot’’ surveys in the ED, although late
night attendees have often been excluded by studies using
convenience sampling. If surveys are conducted after the
patient has left the ED, bias can be introduced by the delay,
and responses tend to be more positive if the acute problem
has resolved.
28
Few studies to date have been longitudinal,
assessing changes in attitude over time,
15
although a small
number make more than one approach to the respondent.
5
Many ED patients are not competent to respond. Some
surveys therefore include ‘‘accompanying person’’ respon-
dents or, when the study population includes children,
Author, year,
and country Factors assessed
Method of assessing
factor satisfaction
Method of assessing
global satisfaction Main findings
Morgan et al
10
2000 UK
16 varying paired
combinations of doctor’s
manner, waiting time, service
accessibility, known doctor,
consultation type, doctor’s shift.
Conjoint analysis
(ranking of paired
preferences)
N/A Doctor’s manner and waiting
times are the most important
factors. Patients will tolerate a
doctor who seems rushed if they
can be seen sooner
Sun et al
5
2000 USA
Nine sociodemographic
variables, 15 comorbid
conditions, 18 process of
care measures. Triage score,
five service factors (courtesy,
completeness of care,
explanation, waiting time,
discharge instructions).
19 specified problems
5 point Likert scale ‘‘Overall satisfaction’’
(5 point Likert scale)
Significant process of care
measures: triage status, number
of treatments. Significant
problems: no help when
needed; poor explanation of
problem cause and test results;
not informed about waiting time,
when to resume normal
activities, or when to reattend.
Significant patient factors: age
and race. Willingnes s to return
is strongly predicted by
satisfaction
Willingness to return
(dichotomous response)
Table 1 Continued
530 Taylor, Benger
www.emjonline.com
parent/guardian respondents.
11 13 16–19
Reported satisfaction
levels in these situations are likely to be influenced by the
factors most affecting the proxy respondent, for example,
waiting times, facilities, communication, and access to the
patient.
Future directions
The complexities of the relation between separate care factors
and global satisfaction mean that local intervention studies
will be unlikely to show striking improvements in overall
satisfaction. Nevertheless, the existing literature does indi-
cate which areas to concentrate on, and which approaches to
use, in future research studies.
To assess the impact of specific interventions, and changes
over time, a baseline must first be established. Methodologies
for assessing patient satisfaction, both with individual service
factors and the overall emergency department experience, are
now becoming more thoroughly developed and refined. The
most commonly used tool is a Likert scale, which offers a
range of choices from strongly positive to strongly negative.
Because patient responses are biased towards positive choices
many researchers have used ‘‘asymmetrical’’ or ‘‘weighted’’
scales to overcome this.
27
The number of points on the scales
varies within and between papers, but it has been shown that
scales with more than five responses do not carry significant
advantages.
27
Visual analogue scales are also popular, and give
comparable results to Likert scales.
27
Some authors have recen-
tly proposed other methods for satisfaction assessment.
528
Focus groups may be used to identify key issues of patient
concern. Data collected from such groups have been
compared with government assumptions of what patients
want,
14
and used to validate questionnaire design.
29
A review
of complaints (and compliments) will also provide qualitative
information that may be very useful at a local level.
Previous research indicates that three interventions worthy
of further study are:
(1) Improving interpersonal, attitudinal and communication
skills in ED staff. There is evidence that a short training
course may be highly effective in this regard.
23 24
(2) Provision of more information and explanation.
(3) Reduction of the perceived waiting time.
Table 2 Methodology of factor and global satisfaction assessment studies
Author and
date Survey format Delivery Timing Respondent
Survey
population Sample
Response
rate (%)
Bjorvel and
Steig
15
1991
Questionnaire Self completed On arrival
and before
discharge
Adult patients Not admitted,
classed by
selected problems
187 patients.
Convenience
77
Booth et al
31
1992
Questionnaire Self completed During ED
visit
Not known Not admitted. Non-
ambulance patients
342 patients.
Consecutive
45 (some
incomplete)
Hansagi et al
6
1992
Questionnaire Postal Few days
after
discharge
Not known Not admitted,
or discharged within
four weeks
567 patients 75
Lewis et al
8
1992
Two part
questionnaire
Self completed During ED
visit
Not known All patients 152 patients.
Systematic sample
Unknown
Maitra et al
16
1992
Questionnaire Self completed In ED after
treatment
Patient or
accompanying person
All ED patients 433 patients.
Systematic sample
51
Bursch et al
13
1993
Questionnaire Telephone Within one
week of
discharge from
ward or ED
Patient or parent/
guardian
All patients 258 patients.
Census
59
Britten et al
14
1994
Semi-structured
interview
Trained
interviewer
One or two days
after admission
Adult patients Adult patients,
admitted via
the ED
83 patients.
Selected ward
inpatients
Unknown
Thompson
et al
17
1995
Questionnaire Telephone Two to four
weeks after
ED visit
Adult patient or
parent/guardian
All non- admitted
patients
1574 patients.
Random sample
43
Thompson
et al
18
1996
Questionnaire Telephone Two to four
weeks after
ED visit
Adult patient or
parent/guardian.
All non- admitted
patients with
recorded waiting
times
1631 patients.
Random sample
45
Hall et al
7
1996
Questionnaire Postal Three to four
days after
ED visit
Not specified Non-admitted
patients from
187 emergency
departments
9106 patients.
Consecutive
sample
25
Rhee et al
19
1996
Questionnaire Telephone Within 60 days
of ED visit
Patients, parents/
guardians or
accompanying person
All patients 618 patients.
Random sample
46
Yarnold et al
11
1998 (1)
Questionnaire Postal One week
after ED visit
Adult patient or
parent/guardian
Non-admitted
patients from an
academic hospital
2277 patients.
Consecutive sample
17
Yarnold et al
11
1998 (2)
Questionnaire Telephone Two to four
weeks after
visit
Adult patient or
parent/guardian
All non-admitted
patients from a
community hospital
1,287 patients.
Random sample
53
Boudreaux
et al
12
2000
Questionnaire Telephone 10 days after
ED visit
Not known Not known 437 patients 39
Morgan et al
10
2000
Focus group and
questionnaire
Postal Not related
to ED visits
Adult Sheffield
residents
10800 adult
responders to a
previous study
271 respondents.
Random sample
65
Sun et al
5
2000
Medical notes
review
Self completed
questionnaire.
In ED 10 days
after ED visit
Adult patients Adult patients
with selected,
high prevalence
problems from
five urban EDs.
2333 patients.
Mixed convenience
and consecutive
samples.
67
Questionnaires Telephone
interview
Patient satisfaction 531
www.emjonline.com
The last is currently receiving considerable government
attention in the UK,
30
with the anticipation that waiting
times will fall and, presumably, patient satisfaction will
improve. Future research could usefully study the effect of
this and similar interventions in the ED, as well as clarifying
the relative importance of the main service factors identified.
The preferred methodological approach to future interven-
tion studies will depend upon local circumstances and the
factor(s) under study. Over the past 10 years the design and
interpretation of satisfaction studies has become increasingly
sophisticated. Interest in qualitative, rather than quantita-
tive, research methods is growing, and some recent studies
have combined the two approaches in an attempt to develop
more reliable and valid tools for measuring satisfaction.
10 29
Multi-centre studies are generally preferable, because of their
inmproved external validity, but very few have been reported
to date. For some factors (such as patient information) a
randomised design is feasible, but for other interventions
(such as reductions in the perceived waiting time) alternative
or novel approaches may be required.
CONCLUSIONS
To a great extent, patients must trust their clinicians to
continuously review and improve their clinical and technical
skills. The emphasis now placed on evidence based practice
recognises this responsibility. However, in the quest to
improve the science of medicine, medicine as an art may be
suffering. The balance will be somewhat restored if we
succeed in identifying, and responding to, wider patient
needs. The study of patient satisfaction is a step in this
direction.
Research to date has identified which broad aspects of the
service our patients care most about. There are many
potential interventions that could be tailored to local needs,
and the papers already published can usefully inform future
strategies for assessing and improving patient satisfaction in
emergency medicine. We will never please ‘‘all of the people
all of the time’’, but within our own departments we can now
start investigating measures that will please more of our
patients most of the time.
Authors’ affiliations
.....................
C Taylor, J R Benger, Emergency Department, Royal United Hospital,
Bath, UK
REFERENCES
1 Department of Health. The NHS plan: a plan for investment, a plan for reform.
London: HMSO, 2000.
2 Anonymous. Involving patients and the public in healthcare: a discussion
document. London: Department of Health, 2001.
3 Thomas EJ , Burstin HR, O’Neil AC, et al. Patient non-compliance with medical
advice after the emergency department visit. Ann Emerg Med
1996;27:49–55.
4 Murray MJ, Le Blanc CH. Clinic follow-up from the emergency department: Do
patients show up? Ann Emerg Med 1996;27:56–8.
5 Sun BC, Adams J, Orav EJ, et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction and
willingness to return with emergency care. Ann Emerg Med 2000;35:426–34.
6 Hansagi H, Carlsson B, Brismar B. The urgency of care need and patient
satisfaction at a hospital emergency department. Health Care Manage Rev
1992;17:71–5.
7 Hall MF, Press I. Keys to patient satisfaction in the emergency department:
results of a multiple facility study. Hosp Healt h Serv Admin 1996;41:515–32.
8 Lewis KE, Woodside RE. Patient satisfaction with care in the emergency
department. J Adv Nurs 1992;17:959–64.
9 Schwab RA. Emergency department customer satisfaction: the point of view
paradox. Ann Emerg Med 2000;35:499–501.
10 Morgan A, Shackley P, Pickin M, et al. Quantifying patient preferences for out
of hours primary care. J Health Serv Res Policy 2000;5:214–18.
11 Yarnold PR, Michelson EA, Thompson DA, et al. Predicting patient
satisfaction: a study of two emergenc y departments. J Behav Med
1998;21:545–63.
12 Boudreaux ED, Ary RD, Mandry CV, et al. Determinants of patient satisfaction
in a large municipal ED: the role of demographic variables, visit
characteristics, and patient perceptions. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18 :394–400.
13 Bursch B, Beezy J, Shaw R. Emergency department satisfaction: what matters
most? Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:586–91 .
14 Britten N, Shaw A. Patients’ experiences of emergency admission: how
relevant is the British government’s Patients Charter? J Adv Nurs
1994;19:1212–20.
15 Bjorvell H, Steig J. Patients’ perceptions of the healthcare received in an
emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:734–8.
16 Maitra A, Chikhani C. Patient satisfaction in an urban accident and
emergency department. Br J Clin Pract 1992;46:182–4.
17 Thompson DA, Yarnold PR. Relating patient satisfaction to waiting time
perceptions and expectations: the disconfirmation paradigm. Acad Emerg
Med 1995;2:1057–62.
18 Thompson DA , Yarnold PR, Williams DR, et al. Effects of actual waiting time,
perceived waiting time, information delivery and expressive quality on patient
satisfaction in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:657–65.
19 Rhee, Bird J. Percept ions and satisfaction with emergency department care.
J Emerg Med 1996;14:679–83.
20 Kologlu M, Agalar F, Cakmakci M. Emergency department information: does
it affect patients’ perception and satisfaction about the care given in an
emergency department? Eur J Emerg Med 1999;6:245–8.
21 Krishell S, Baraff LJ. Effect of emergency department information on patient
satisfaction. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:568–72.
22 Corbett SW, White PD, Wittlake WA. Benefits of informational videotape for
emergency department patients. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:67–71.
23 Mayer TA, Cates RI, Mastorovich MJ, et al. Emergency department patient
satisfaction: Customer service training improves patient satisfaction and
ratings of physician and nurse skill. Journal of Healthcare Management
1998;43:427–42.
24 Lau FL. Can communication skills workshops for emergency department
doctors improve patient satisfaction? Emerg Med J 2000;17:251–3.
25 George S, Read S, Westlake L, et al. Evaluation of nurse triage in a British
accident and emergency department. BMJ 1992;304:876–8.
26 Byrne G, Richardson M, Brunsdon J, et al. Patient satisfaction with emergency
nurse practitioners in A&E. J Clin Nurs 2000;9:83–93.
27 Fitzpatrick R. Surveys of patient satisfaction: I—Important general
considerations. BMJ 1991;302:887–9.
28 Trout A, Magnusson AR, Hedges JR. Patient satisfaction. Investigations in the
emergency department: What does the literature say. Acad Emerg Med
2000;7:695–709.
29 McKinley RK, Manku-Scott T, Hastings AM, et al. Reliability and validity of a
new measure of patient satisfaction with out of hours primary care in the UK:
development of a patient questionnaire. BMJ 1997;314:193–8.
30 Department of Health. Reforming emergency care. London: HMSO, 2001.
31 Booth AJ, Harrison CJ, Gardener GJ, et al. Waiting times and patient
satisfaction in the accident and emergency department. Archives of
Emergency Medicine 1992;9:162–8.
32 Bruce TA, Bowman JM, Brown ST. Factors that influence patient satisfaction in
the emergency department. J Nurs Care Qual 1998;13:31–7.
532 Taylor, Benger
www.emjonline.com
