Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 15, 2025

Predictive Measurement for Windlass Change in Length and Selected Treatment Outcomes in Chronic Plantar Fasciitis
Published on: March 1, 2024
Relationship of Press Ganey Satisfaction and PROMIS Function and Pain in Foot and Ankle Patients
Devon C Nixon1, Chong Zhang2, Maxwell W Weinberg1
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Background:
Patient satisfaction has garnered interest as a tool to measure health care quality. However, orthopedic studies in total joint arthroplasty, spine, and hand patients have offered conflicting relationships between Press Ganey (PG) satisfaction metrics and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. No prior study has assessed the relationship between PG and PROs in foot and ankle patients. Whether satisfaction and outcomes instruments, though, measure similar or differing aspects of the patient experience is unclear. Here, we tested if there was an association between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) outcomes and PG satisfaction scores.
Methods:
PG and PROMIS outcomes data for new patient visits to an orthopedic foot and ankle clinic between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients that completed PG satisfaction surveys were included for study. All patients who completed PG surveys and completed one or both PROMIS physical function (PF) or pain interference (PI) metrics administered by computerized adaptive testing were included. Negative binomial regressions were used to compare PRO scores to PG overall satisfaction and PG satisfaction with care provider, adjusting for patient characteristics. Results were reported as dissatisfaction score ratios, which represented the amount of PG dissatisfaction associated with a 10-point increase in PROMIS PF or PI. Of the 3984 new patient visits, only 441 completed the PG survey (11.3% response rate).
Results:
Ceiling effects were seen with PG data: 64% of patients reported perfect satisfaction with care provider and 27% had perfect overall satisfaction. Higher function on the PROMIS PF was weakly associated with increased overall satisfaction (ratio = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.68-0.99, P = .039) and increased satisfaction with care provider (ratio = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.40-0.92, P = .019). However, pain (PROMIS PI) was not associated with overall satisfaction or with satisfaction with care provider.
Conclusions:
Based on our data here, patient satisfaction was weakly related to patient-reported function but not pain interference among this subset of new patients presenting to a foot and ankle clinic. Given our essentially negative findings, further study is needed to determine which aspects of the PG satisfaction and PROMIS scores track similarly. Further, our findings add to the growing literature showcasing limitations of the PG tool, including low response rates and notable ceiling effects. If satisfaction metrics and patient-reported outcomes capture differing aspects of the patient experience, we need to better understand how that influences the measurement of health care quality and value.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, comparative study.
More Related Videos
07:44Evaluation of Patients' Posture and Gait Profile After Lumbar Fusion Surgery by Video Rasterstereography and Treadmill Gait Analysis
Published on: March 23, 2019
09:01Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis with Total Ankle Replacement Through a Lateral Transfibular Approach
Published on: January 24, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease V: Postoperative Nursing Management
Peripheral Artery Disease IV: Nursing Management
Pulse Assessment Sites
Peripheral Arterial Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Evaluation