Satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM)

Lynne Morishita; Chad Boult; Lisa Boult; Stan Smith; James T. Pacala

doi:10.1093/geront/38.3.303

Satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM)

Lynne Morishita, Chad Boult, Lisa Boult, Stan Smith, James T. Pacala

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

35 Scopus citations

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate high-risk older adults' satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM). Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (n = 522) age 70 years and older who had a high probability of repeated admission to hospitals (P(ra) > .40) were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or GEM for six months. Despite the stresses imposed by outpatient GEM (e.g., new relationships with providers, frequent office visits and changes in treatments), the mean satisfaction scores of the recipients of GEM were 9% higher than those of the recipients of usual care (4.31 vs 3.96, p < .001). The primary physicians of GEM recipients were also highly satisfied with GEM care.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	303-308
Number of pages	6
Journal	Gerontologist
Volume	38
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/38.3.303
State	Published - 1998
Externally published	Yes

Keywords

Ambulatory care
Consumer satisfaction
Geriatric assessment
High-risk elderly patients
Patient satisfaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Gerontology
Geriatrics and Gerontology

Access to Document

10.1093/geront/38.3.303

Cite this

@article{10a203c152e74cab92dce9dda98ef52a,

title = "Satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM)",

abstract = "The purpose of this study was to evaluate high-risk older adults' satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM). Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (n = 522) age 70 years and older who had a high probability of repeated admission to hospitals (P(ra) > .40) were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or GEM for six months. Despite the stresses imposed by outpatient GEM (e.g., new relationships with providers, frequent office visits and changes in treatments), the mean satisfaction scores of the recipients of GEM were 9% higher than those of the recipients of usual care (4.31 vs 3.96, p < .001). The primary physicians of GEM recipients were also highly satisfied with GEM care.",

keywords = "Ambulatory care, Consumer satisfaction, Geriatric assessment, High-risk elderly patients, Patient satisfaction",

author = "Lynne Morishita and Chad Boult and Lisa Boult and Stan Smith and Pacala, {James T.}",

note = "Funding Information: This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging with cofunding from the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (R01-AG/HS11047), the Health Care Financing Administration, and the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation. We would like to thank David McCaffrey, Milinda Rambel Stone, Cole Creves, Sharone Jen-son, and the GEM patients and primary physicians who responded to the surveys.",

year = "1998",

doi = "10.1093/geront/38.3.303",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "38",

pages = "303--308",

journal = "Gerontologist",

issn = "0016-9013",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM)

AU - Morishita, Lynne

AU - Boult, Chad

AU - Boult, Lisa

AU - Smith, Stan

AU - Pacala, James T.

N1 - Funding Information: This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging with cofunding from the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (R01-AG/HS11047), the Health Care Financing Administration, and the American Academy of Family Physicians Foundation. We would like to thank David McCaffrey, Milinda Rambel Stone, Cole Creves, Sharone Jen-son, and the GEM patients and primary physicians who responded to the surveys.

PY - 1998

Y1 - 1998

N2 - The purpose of this study was to evaluate high-risk older adults' satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM). Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (n = 522) age 70 years and older who had a high probability of repeated admission to hospitals (P(ra) > .40) were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or GEM for six months. Despite the stresses imposed by outpatient GEM (e.g., new relationships with providers, frequent office visits and changes in treatments), the mean satisfaction scores of the recipients of GEM were 9% higher than those of the recipients of usual care (4.31 vs 3.96, p < .001). The primary physicians of GEM recipients were also highly satisfied with GEM care.

AB - The purpose of this study was to evaluate high-risk older adults' satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM). Community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (n = 522) age 70 years and older who had a high probability of repeated admission to hospitals (P(ra) > .40) were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or GEM for six months. Despite the stresses imposed by outpatient GEM (e.g., new relationships with providers, frequent office visits and changes in treatments), the mean satisfaction scores of the recipients of GEM were 9% higher than those of the recipients of usual care (4.31 vs 3.96, p < .001). The primary physicians of GEM recipients were also highly satisfied with GEM care.

KW - Ambulatory care

KW - Consumer satisfaction

KW - Geriatric assessment

KW - High-risk elderly patients

KW - Patient satisfaction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031780248&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031780248&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/geront/38.3.303

DO - 10.1093/geront/38.3.303

M3 - Article

C2 - 9640850

AN - SCOPUS:0031780248

SN - 0016-9013

VL - 38

SP - 303

EP - 308

JO - Gerontologist

JF - Gerontologist

IS - 3

ER -

Satisfaction with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management (GEM)

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this