Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Patient Satisfaction Measurement in Occupational and Environmental Medicine Practice

Drury, David L. MD, MPH; Adamo, Philip MD, MPH; Cloeren, Marianne MD, MPH; Hegmann, Kurt T. MD, MPH; Martin, Douglas W. MD; Levine, Michael J. MD, MPH; Olson, Shawn M. MD, MPH; Pransky, Glenn S. MD, MOCCH; Tacci, James A. MD, MPH, JD; Thiese, Matthew PhD, MSPH Ad Hoc Committee on Patient Satisfaction Surveys

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine: May 2018 - Volume 60 - Issue 5 - p e227–e231
doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001331

High patient satisfaction is a desirable goal in medical care. Patient satisfaction measures are increasingly used to evaluate and improve quality in all types of medical practices. However, the unique aspects of occupational and environmental medicine (OEM) practice require development of OEM-specific measures and thoughtful interpretation of results. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine has developed and recommends a set of specific questions to measure patient satisfaction in OEM, designed to meet anticipated regulatory requirements, facilitate quality improvement of participating OEM practices, facilitate case-management review, and offer fair and accurate assessment of OEM physicians.

American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Elk Grove, Illinois.

Address correspondence to: Marianne Dreger, MA, ACOEM, 25 Northwest Point Blvd, Suite 700, Elk Grove Village, IL 60007 (

This position paper was developed by the ACOEM Ad Hoc Committee on Patient Satisfaction Surveys, reviewed by the ACOEM Committee on Policy, Procedures, and Public Positions, and approved by the ACOEM Board of Directors. ACOEM requires all substantive contributors to its documents to disclose any potential competing interests, which are carefully considered. ACOEM emphasizes that the judgments expressed herein represent the best available evidence at the time of publication and shall be considered the position of ACOEM and not the individual opinions of contributing authors.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Patient satisfaction measures are increasingly used to evaluate and improve quality in all types of medical practices. In applying these tools, it is important that they be designed appropriately for the practice, adequately tested to ensure promotion and valid reflection of quality care, and avoid financial incentives that may lead to lower quality or excessive medical care. The unique aspects of occupational and environmental medicine (OEM) practice (eg, work status as a primary outcome, potential conflicts between employer and patient interests, medico-legal context of work injuries, performance of regulatory examinations, and others) require development of OEM-specific measures and thoughtful interpretation of results.

The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has developed and recommends a set of OEM-specific questions to measure patient satisfaction in OEM, designed to meet anticipated regulatory requirements, facilitate quality improvement of participating OEM practices, facilitate case-management review, and offer fair and accurate assessment of OEM physicians.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Studies have shown patient satisfaction to be associated with clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and treatment compliance.1 Although high patient satisfaction is a desirable goal in medical care, a growing body of evidence has demonstrated problems with patient satisfaction measurement, and the interpretation and application of results.2 Patient satisfaction reports can be influenced by many factors besides quality of care. Research has demonstrated systematic differences in patient satisfaction based on demographic characteristics, subjective experience with the clinic environment, communication style, and established relationship with the physician.3–6 Dissatisfied patients are more likely to respond to surveys.7 Patient satisfaction ratings are higher for care that may satisfy immediate patient requests (eg, requests for opioids or unnecessary diagnostic testing) but is clearly linked to worse long-term outcomes.8–11

High patient satisfaction does not always correlate with more objective measures of quality. Tying patient satisfaction results to physician compensation may produce objectively worse results for patients and dissatisfaction among providers.12–16 In one study, almost half of physician respondents believed that pressure to obtain better patient satisfaction scores promoted inappropriate care, including unnecessary antibiotic and opioid prescriptions, tests, procedures, and hospital admissions.17

Back to Top | Article Outline

Patient Satisfaction in OEM

The OEM encounter often differs from the standard physician–patient encounter. As patients, workers certainly value the aspects of care which tend to drive patient satisfaction in general health care (quality, communication, and timeliness). Quality of OEM encounters also relies on several unique factors that could be measured via a patient survey tool:

  • Physician's understanding of the job and work hazards,
  • Provision of advice about navigating the return-to-work (RTW) process,
  • Setting appropriate work restrictions, and
  • Guidance about preventing re-injury.18,19

For most other medical specialties, the physician and patient are the primary, if not exclusive, stakeholders in the medical encounter. Decisions made in OEM encounters may have broader impact and involve other stakeholders including:

  • Safety of coworkers,
  • Safety of the general public,
  • Economic well-being of family members,
  • Interest of the employer in RTW outcomes,
  • Legal and regulatory requirements, and
  • Direct or indirect involvement of union representatives.

Many OEM encounters are primarily forensic. In some, such as independent medical examinations (IMEs), no physician–patient relationship is established. In others, such as urine drug screens, there may be no contact between the patient and physician at all. Visits for required physicals and care for workers’ compensation (WC) injuries do not provide the type of long-standing relationships forged in other types of clinical practice.

Regardless of practice type, patients and physicians do not always agree on what should be done. However, OEM physicians are at particular risk of a “loyalties bind” because of three main factors. First, OEM physicians place great weight on adherence to evidence-based treatment guidelines (another important quality measure). These guidelines often conflict with patient wishes for off-work notes, opioid prescriptions, or diagnostic testing. Second, there is a greater number of parties for whom the OEM decisions are relevant. Patients may perceive a physician decision different from the patient's wishes as a decision made to please the employer. Third, in many situations, the patient must see a specific OEM physician and patient choice of physician does not exist.

There has been limited research on the determinants of patient satisfaction in OEM, with the emphasis on acute injury care.20–22 Studies have found that OEM patient satisfaction was more dependent on the patient's ability to choose a physician than clinical quality, outcome, or return to work.14,19 Washington State's Department of Labor and Industries developed a patient satisfaction survey specific for occupational injury care. This survey was tested, validated, and subsequently used for both research and quality improvement efforts.23 In this high-quality study, medical and disability outcomes were the same or better in WC managed care than usual care, but OEM patient satisfaction ratings were significantly lower, primarily related to the issue of restricted choice of physician (something the OEM physician cannot control). In the same study, employers were much more satisfied with the WC managed care intervention than with usual care.24

Back to Top | Article Outline


An OEM patient satisfaction survey needs to deal effectively with the unique features of OEM encounters, ideally with unique question(s) tailored to specific types of OEM visit types. For purposes of patient satisfaction evaluation, ACOEM has identified five OEM visit types which differ in terms of their content and the context:

  1. Acute, work-related injury visits: Includes for example, acute low back pain, knee/ankle sprains, lacerations, foreign bodies in the eye, simple chemical exposures, and burns. Includes the first and follow-up visits by the same physician or same group of providers.
  2. Referral visits for injury care and/or consultations for work-related injuries: Includes chronic low back pain and complex chemical exposures.
  3. Work examinations: Includes post-offer pre-placement physicals, annual physicals, respirator physicals, medical surveillance examinations (eg, OSHA required examinations), commercial driver examinations, and travel medicine encounters.
  4. Other examinations: Includes IMEs, and disability, fitness-for-duty, and return-to-work evaluations. These evaluations are usually performed at the request of an employer, insurer, or lawyer after end-of-healing, prolonged absences from work, or lost work time due to Family Medical Leave Act, etc.
  5. Medical testing only: Includes vision screening; laboratory tests; drug testing; hearing, lung function, and tuberculosis testing; and immunizations.

These OEM visit types differ significantly in terms of factors contributing to patient satisfaction. Therefore, ACOEM recommends limiting comparisons of encounters within each of these five domains.

ACOEM strongly recommends that the following issues are addressed in order to interpret properly patient satisfaction survey results:

  • Use an OEM-specific survey instrument: Standard patient satisfaction survey instruments are inadequate for use in OEM settings.25 An instrument specific to OEM patient satisfaction is necessary to provide valid data for quality improvement and a fair assessment of OEM physicians and their practices.22 Our review of the patient satisfaction literature in general medicine and in OEM suggests that the validity of such measurement will be improved if the survey instrument incorporates the following characteristics:
    1. OEM physicians are compared with OEM physicians;
    2. OEM patient satisfaction scores for specific OEM encounter types are compared with similar OEM encounter types;
    3. Survey is anonymous and confidential;
    4. Minimum 70% response rate;
    5. Minimum of 100 surveys per physician for adequate statistical significance;
    6. Measurement of demographic variables; and
    7. Prompt timing of survey (immediately after the encounter to within 4 weeks).
  • ACOEM recommends that survey results for each visit type be considered separately. Caution must be exercised when results are used in benchmarking. Ideally, OEM physicians would be compared with other OEM physicians with adjustment for visit type, state, and other factors. Exogenous factors such as who chooses the OEM physician for WC care vary by state, and could confound the analysis.
  • View OEM patient satisfaction data in a broad context: Patient satisfaction is only one measure of healthcare quality, and is not always aligned with what physicians consider best practices in medicine. When assessing physician performance, it is essential that administrators, regulators, and others view patient satisfaction data in the broader context of a suite of quality measures. More research is needed to understand factors that may confound analyses of OEM patient satisfaction scores. Assessment and reassessment of these factors will be an ongoing process. As new challenges to accurate analysis are identified, survey instruments will need to adapt to account for them.
  • Consider the interests of employers and the public welfare in the overall evaluation of OEM encounters: Employers expect effective utilization of early return-to-work programs for their injured workers and cost-effective, appropriate medical care services that help workers regain function. Regarding the public welfare, the OEM physician is in a position of public trust when performing qualification examinations on personnel with safety-sensitive jobs. These include commercial motor vehicle drivers, airline pilots, nuclear power plant operators, police officers, and firefighters, among others. In many cases, regulations or consensus medical standards must be followed by the examiner. Adherence to evidence-based medical guidelines for OEM practice is one way of assuring the interests of payers, employers, and the public are being served, in addition to patient interests.
  • Critically evaluate any OEM quality-improvement process that potentially weakens evidence-based OEM practice outcomes prior to implementation: OEM physicians are appropriately concerned about reduced worker satisfaction scores being used for compensation adjustments when exemplary, evidence-based OEM decision-making is followed. Any OEM financial incentive program tied to worker satisfaction survey results should not inadvertently result in worse evidence-based OEM clinical practice decisions and worse medical outcomes.
  • Minimize unnecessary duplication of worker surveys: Payer case-management review programs have an important, independent, role in maintaining quality of care. Further development and adoption of appropriate OEM patient satisfaction instruments and standards should minimize any unnecessary duplication of worker surveys from OEM practices and case-management programs. Additionally, this approach will potentially foster collaboration of OEM practices and case-management programs to strengthen evidenced-based OEM practice standards.
  • Establish a central point for data collection and analysis: The complexity of a survey instrument suitable for measurement of patient satisfaction in OEM encounters, and the analytical difficulties this poses, are important challenges moving forward. To address these issues, ACOEM recommends that the survey be tested and validated with the goal of establishing a central point for collection and analysis of OEM patient satisfaction data.
Back to Top | Article Outline


Richard Evans, an early patient satisfaction researcher, warns that even with a validated survey instrument, “We must continue to measure patients’ assessments of their experience with individual physicians and try to understand more what they mean, how they correlate with other aspects of individual performance, and how doctors can learn and improve by the assessment. If, however, these assessments become more summative, part of ‘performance management’, and integral to re-certification, then in terms of procedural justice there has to be more science around validity, reliability, standardized administration of the instruments and sampling and investment in comparative benchmarking.”26

There is a current focus on incorporating patient satisfaction scores in all medical practices. Development of a validated OEM patient satisfaction survey tool which accommodates the diversity of OEM practice encounters is essential. ACOEM recognizes the value of such an instrument and as our medical specialty representative should be involved in its development and dissemination. ACOEM's Ad Hoc Committee on Patient Satisfaction Surveys has developed an OEM patient satisfaction survey tool (Appendix 1). This initial effort addresses the recommendations in this document. An iterative process of validation, testing, revision, and retesting is anticipated.

Back to Top | Article Outline


This document was developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Patient Satisfaction Surveys under the auspices of the Council on OEM Practice. The Committee wishes to thank Nancy V. Rodway, MD, MPH, MS, Kurt T. Hegmann, MD, MPH, Glenn S. Pransky, MD, MOCCH, Kathyrn Mueller, MD, MPH, and Melissa Bean, DO, MBA, MPH (Chair, OEM Practice Council) who reviewed this position statement and provided insightful recommendations.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Appendix 1: Patient Satisfaction Measurement in OEM Practice Survey

Patient Satisfaction Survey





Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 2013; 3:pii: e001570.
2. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997; 45:1829–1843.
3. Bickell NA, Neuman J, Fei K, Franco R, Joseph KA. Quality of breast cancer care: perception versus practice. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30:1791–1795.
4. Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, et al. Patients’ global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144:665–672.
5. Rahmqvist M, Bara AC. Patient characteristics and quality dimensions related to patient satisfaction. Int J Qual Health Care 2010; 22:86–92.
6. Rodriguez HP, Marshall RE, Rogers WH, Safran DG. Primary care physician visit continuity: a comparison of patient-reported and administratively derived measures. J Gen Intern Med 2008; 23:1499–1502.
7. Bachman JW. The problem with patient satisfaction scores. Fam Pract Manag 2016; 23:23–27.
8. Fenton JJ, Franks P, Feldman MD, et al. Impact of patient requests on provider-perceived visit difficulty in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30:214–220.
9. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, Bertakis KD, Franks P. The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:405–411.
10. Frantsve LM, Kerns RD. Patient-provider interactions in the management of chronic pain: current findings within the context of shared medical decision making. Pain Med 2007; 8:25–35.
11. Zgierska A, Miller M, Rabago D. Patient satisfaction, prescription drug abuse, and potential unintended consequences. JAMA 2012; 307:1377–1378.
12. Fischer B, Keates A, Buhringer G, Reimer J, Rehm J. Non-medical use of prescription opioids and prescription opioid-related harms: why so markedly higher in North America compared to the rest of the world? Addiction 2014; 109:177–181.
13. Hegmann KT, Weiss MS, Bowden K, et al. ACOEM practice guidelines: opioids for treatment of acute, subacute, chronic, and postoperative pain. J Occup Environ Med 2014; 56:e143–e159.
14. Kyes KB, Wickizer TM, Franklin G, et al. Evaluation of the Washington State Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Pilot Project I: medical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Med Care 1999; 37:972–981.
15. Lembke A. Why doctors prescribe opioids to known opioid abusers. How cultural attitudes and financial disincentives affect the prescribing habits of physicians. Minn Med 2013; 96:36–37.
16. Dowell D, Haegerich T, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain – United States, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016; 65:1–49.
17. Zgierska A, Rabago D, Miller MM. Impact of patient satisfaction ratings on physicians and clinical care. Patient Prefer Adherence 2014; 8:437–446.
18. Kilgour E, Kosny A, McKenzie D, Collie A. Healing or harming? Healthcare provider interactions with injured workers and insurers in workers’ compensation systems. J Occup Rehabil 2015; 25:220–239.
19. Pourat N, Kominski G, Roby D, Cameron M. Satisfaction with care and perceptions of quality among injured workers in California's Workers’ Compensation system. J Occup Environ Med 2007; 49:1249–1256.
20. Guzik A, Menzel NN, Fitzpatrick J, McNulty R. Patient satisfaction with nurse practitioner and physician services in the occupational health setting. AAOHN J 2009; 57:191–197.
21. Shaw WS, Zaia A, Pransky G, Winters T, Patterson WB. Perceptions of provider communication and patient satisfaction for treatment of acute low back pain. J Occup Environ Med 2005; 47:1036–1043.
22. Verbeek JH, de Boer AG, van der Weide WE, et al. Patient satisfaction with occupational health physicians, development of a questionnaire. Occup Environ Med 2005; 62:119–123.
23. Kyes KB, Franklin G, Weaver MR. Reliability and validity of medical outcome and patient satisfaction measures among injured workers in Washington State: a pretest. Am J Ind Med 1997; 31:427–434.
24. Kyes KB, Wickizer TM, Franklin G. Employer satisfaction with workers’ compensation health care: results of the Washington State Workers’ Compensation Managed Care Pilot. J Occup Environ Med 2003; 45:234–240.
25. Verbeek J, van Dijk F, Rasanen K, Piirainen H, Kankaanpaa E, Hulshof C. Consumer satisfaction with occupational health services: should it be measured? Occup Environ Med 2001; 58:272–278.
26. Evans RG, Edwards A, Evans S, Elwyn B, Elwyn G. Assessing the practising physician using patient surveys: a systematic review of instruments and feedback methods. Fam Pract 2007; 24:117–127.
Copyright © 2018 by the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine