Over the past decades of managed care we have evolved from a medical model that mandated specific behaviors toward the patient to a business model that is supposedly based on customer satisfaction. After all, the business theory is basically that satisfied customers are more likely to come back and do additional business. As any customer knows that model does break down in a number of ways. My recent post illustrates a marked difference in the level of customer assistance available through many Internet companies over the past 15-20 years. And yet, large managed care companies and other health care companies continue to adopt the customer satisfaction approach even when it can be demonstrated that this approach can result in increased mortality and morbidity for the satisfied patients.
It recently came to my attention that there is another variable in play that would have never been an issue in the days of patient centric care. The best way to point it out is with the example. Two separate people recently talked with me about their experience buying new cars. I am going to maintain their anonymity because it could be traced back to the salesperson and have repercussions as you will see in a few lines. New cars are high tech vehicles with an impressive array of electronics. All of these electronics require more than a manual or a DVD. The salesperson generally gives you an orientation to the vehicle and helps you with the preliminary setup. In both cases that occurred taking about an hour each time. At the end of the hour the salesperson approached with the customer satisfaction survey and said something like this:
"This is the customer satisfaction survey. It is rated on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 is the worst and 10 is the best. I have to tell you that if you liked my service I would really appreciate it if you could rate me a 10. If you rate me a 9 or lower I am out of here! They will replace me in a month."
The first time I heard that, I thought "Incredible - this is just like the scripting that occurs at major hospitals and clinics." Scripting is basically an exit interview set up to capture the elements of the customer satisfaction survey and inflate the scores. The best way to get a high rating on a question about whether or not your nurse provided you with information on how to take your medication, is to have that nurse go through a standardized protocol about that right before he or she hands you the satisfaction survey. What can you do at that point? It just happened and it matches the survey question. In compiling that kind of information, it should not surprise anyone when you find that all of the facilities in your area are in the 90th percentile.
I had a second thought. I remembered the times that a patient was clearly satisfied with my work and said so right during the appointment. Having been "scripted" about the importance of customer satisfaction at a recent staff meeting I had the thought: "Well if you really feel that way, it would greatly help me if you said that on the survey that they will send out to you on your satisfaction with my care." I admit to thinking about it, but never said it. I would never say it because I consider it to be a boundary violation. Since when is it proper to suggest to a patient that they do something to advance your interests? To my way of thinking (and the thinking of psychiatrists who preceded me) - never. It is such a natural thought that it would not surprise me if it happens. I think it is more likely to happen with clinicians schooled in business model of medicine. If it was ever disclosed I can imagine that there are any number of administrators waiting to jump on it. I can recall a physician telling me that his administrator insisted that he tell all patients coming in to see him that they need to bring in their insurance card. He was actually reprimanded for not doing it a few times. It only took a couple of complaints about that physician being too focused on the insurance card to get him fired by the same administrator who insisted that he should ask about it in the first place.
It is internally consistent that the MBAs who currently run America's healthcare system with seemingly little input from physicians would force the customer satisfaction issue. They consider it a tool even though I would question its validity these days. It seems like customer service is just common sense - why shouldn't it be rated? There are a number of reasons. Many ratings appear to have an unusual level of complexity. Does it really take 10 or 20 different Likert scales or is a simple "yes" or "no" global rating better? Clinical trials technology would suggest that there is an important role for both. What about the manner in which the data was collected? Should a rating that was coached by the subject who is being rating have the same validity as the rating that was not coached? I would say no - again based on clinical trials technology. Data needs to be collected in the same way to be comparable. Either everybody uses scripting or nobody uses it. There could also be a correction factor for ratings where scripting occurs. It may result in a more realistic look at health care resources in local communities. We also know that the way health care companies are managed has nothing to do with customer satisfaction. One of the leading texts in how MBAs are taught shows very clearly that profitability counts and mental health services are considered the "dog" quadrant. Are you really going to pay much attention to ratings of providers in the "dog" quadrant? Only if you need it for leverage with those providers. And finally does everything have to be rated? If I am desperately searching for a way to fix my computer so that I can complete a document for a deadline, are pop-ups asking me to rate whether or not suggested fixes that did not work were helpful? Probably not. On the clinic or hospital rating from those questions focus on services that are peripheral to the provision of care. How does the lack of parking or an ATM machine affect a patient's attitude toward their doctor when it comes to those ratings?
The most important consideration that nobody seems interested at all in - what is lost when we apply business ratings to physicians. It allows us to consider that physicians are just like any other group of hucksters bound only by their ability to separate you from your money. Caveat emptor right? It neglects an entire system of checks and balances that have evolved over centuries from the professional relationship between patients and their physicians. It also neglects a massive bureaucratic structure that regulates physicians and demands certain behaviors and concessions when they engage in certain types of business transactions. Rating physicians, even with multiple Likert scales seems to put them on the same plane as the pizza delivery guy.
With the current business emphasis in medicine, it may be that some day physicians will have the same level of responsibility as the pizza delivery guy especially if governments and business interests succeed in their efforts to erode professionalism. Until then, I think it pays to remember that your physician is obligated to treat you in a certain way - irrespective of any rating systems.
That includes not requesting a certain rating.
George Dawson, MD, DFAPA
Supplementary 1: No offense to pizza delivery guys everywhere and I hope you don't have to hand out customer satisfaction surveys with the pizza.
