Introduction: Patient satisfaction is a measurement reflecting patients’ perception of outcome of care and has been considered for use in future reimbursement schemes. An ideal patient satisfaction instrument could guide changes in surgical practice for quality improvement. Currently, no consensus on patient satisfaction instruments exists in the medical or surgical treatment of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Use of quality of life instruments such as the Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire is widespread, but this does an inadequate job of measuring patient satisfaction. The goals of this review are to establish how patient satisfaction with surgical treatment of PD has been previously measured, determine if an ideal patient satisfaction instrument exists, and to define the dimensions of care that determine patient satisfaction with the surgical treatment of PD.

Methods: A systematic search of four online databases, unpublished sources, and citations was undertaken to identify 15 studies reporting patient satisfaction with the surgical treatment of PD. Manuscripts were reviewed and instruments were categorized by content and method axes. Major factors influencing patient satisfaction were identified and acted as a structure to define the dimensions of patient satisfaction in the surgical treatment of PD.

Results: Studies used predominantly multidimensional (10/16), rather than global (6/16) satisfaction instruments. Generic (12/16) rather than disease specific (4/16) instruments were utilized more frequently. Every study reported on satisfaction with outcome and four studies reported on satisfaction with outcome and care. Six dimensions of patient status, outcome and care experience affecting patient satisfaction were identified: motor function, patient-specific health characteristics, programming/long-term care, surgical considerations, device/hardware, and functional independence.

Conclusions: At present, no patient satisfaction instrument exists that is disease- specific and covers all dimensions of patient satisfaction in surgery for PD. For quality improvement, such a disease-specific, comprehensive patient satisfaction instrument should be designed, validated, and implemented.

Patient Care: Development of a comprehensive satisfaction instrument for this population will give a new clinical outcome measure for future studies.

Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to: 1) Describe the axes of patient satisfaction 2) Understand the current state of the measurement of patient satisfaction in the surgical treatment of Parkinson's disease 3) Discuss the factors that drive satisfaction in this patient population

References: 1. Aharony L, Strasser S: Patient satisfaction: what we know about and what we still need to explore. Med Care Rev 50:49–79, 1993 2. Carr-Hill RA: The measurement of patient satisfaction. J Public Health Med 14:236–249, 1992 3. Chou KL, Forman MS, Trojanowski JQ, Hurtig HI, Baltuch GH: Subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation in a patient with levodopa-responsive multiple system atrophy. Case report. J Neurosurg 100:553–556, 2004 4. Daniels C, Krack P, Volkmann J, Raethjen J, Pinsker MO, Kloss M, et al.: Is improvement in the quality of life after subthalamic nucleus stimulation in Parkinson’s disease predictable? Mov Disord Off J Mov Disord Soc 26:2516–2521, 2011 5. D’Antonio LL, Zimmerman GJ, Iacono RP: Changes in health related quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease with and without posteroventral pallidotomy. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 142:759–767; discussion 767–768, 2000 6. Drapier S, Raoul S, Drapier D, Leray E, Lallement F, Rivier I, et al.: Only physical aspects of quality of life are significantly improved by bilateral subthalamic stimulation in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol 252:583–588, 2005 7. Farris S, Giroux M: Retrospective review of factors leading to dissatisfaction with subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation during long-term management. Surg Neurol Int 4:69, 2013 8. Ferrara J, Diamond A, Hunter C, Davidson A, Almaguer M, Jankovic J: Impact of STN-DBS on life and health satisfaction in patients with Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 81:315–319, 2010 9. Ford B, Winfield L, Pullman SL, Frucht SJ, Du Y, Greene P, et al.: Subthalamic nucleus stimulation in advanced Parkinson’s disease: blinded assessments at one year follow up. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 75:1255–1259, 2004 10. Gray A, McNamara I, Aziz T, Gregory R, Bain P, Wilson J, et al.: Quality of life outcomes following surgical treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord Off J Mov Disord Soc 17:68–75, 2002 11. Hariz G-M, Lindberg M, Hariz MI, Bergenheim AT: Gender differences in disability and health-related quality of life in patients with Parkinson’s disease treated with stereotactic surgery. Acta Neurol Scand 108:28–37, 2003 12. Hashimoto T, Tada T, Ikeda S: Presurgical factors affecting patient satisfaction with pallidal surgery in Parkinson’s disease. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg 84:24–27, 2006 13. Hudak PL, Wright JG: The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine 25:3167–3177, 2000 14. Kleiner-Fisman G, Fisman DN, Sime E, Saint-Cyr JA, Lozano AM, Lang AE: Long-term follow up of bilateral deep brain stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in patients with advanced Parkinson disease. J Neurosurg 99:489–495, 2003 15. Krack P, Batir A, Van Blercom N, Chabardes S, Fraix V, Ardouin C, et al.: Five-year follow-up of bilateral stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus in advanced Parkinson’s disease. N Engl J Med 349:1925–1934, 2003 16. Kuehler A, Henrich G, Schroeder U, Conrad B, Herschbach P, Ceballos-Baumann A: A novel quality of life instrument for deep brain stimulation in movement disorders. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 74:1023–1030, 2003 17. Lebow JL: Consumer assessments of the quality of medical care. Med Care 12:328–337, 1974 18. Linder-Pelz SU: Toward a theory of patient satisfaction. Soc Sci Med 1982 16:577–582, 1982 19. Schuurman PR, Bosch DA, Bossuyt PM, Bonsel GJ, van Someren EJ, de Bie RM, et al.: A comparison of continuous thalamic stimulation and thalamotomy for suppression of severe tremor. N Engl J Med 342:461–468, 2000 20. Siderowf A, Jaggi JL, Xie SX, Loveland-Jones C, Leng L, Hurtig H, et al.: Long-term effects of bilateral subthalamic nucleus stimulation on health-related quality of life in advanced Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord Off J Mov Disord Soc 21:746–753, 2006 21. Son B, Han S, Choi Y, Kim H, Kim M, Yang S, et al.: Transaxillary subpectoral implantation of implantable pulse generator for deep brain stimulation. Neuromodulation J Int Neuromodulation Soc 15:260–266; discussion 266, 2012 22. Thavanesan N, Gillies M, Farrell M, Green AL, Aziz T: Deep brain stimulation in multiple system atrophy mimicking idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Case Rep Neurol 6:232–237, 2014 23. Timmermann L, Schüpbach M, Hertel F, Wolf E, Eleopra R, Franzini A, et al.: A new rechargeable device for deep brain stimulation: a prospective patient satisfaction survey. Eur Neurol 69:193–199, 2013 24. Ullman M, Vedam-Mai V, Resnick AS, Yachnis AT, McFarland NR, Merritt S, et al.: Deep brain stimulation response in pathologically confirmed cases of multiple system atrophy. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 18:86–88, 2012 25. Waln O, Jimenez-Shahed J: Rechargeable deep brain stimulation implantable pulse generators in movement disorders: patient satisfaction and conversion parameters. Neuromodulation J Int Neuromodulation Soc 17:425–430; discussion 430, 2014 26. Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL: The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction. Health Med Care Serv Rev 1:1, 3–15, 1978 27. Ware JE, Hays RD: Methods for measuring patient satisfaction with specific medical encounters. Med Care 26:393–402, 1988 28. Ware JE, Snyder MK, Wright WR, Davies AR: Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann 6:247–263, 1983 29. Weaver FM, Follett K, Stern M, Hur K, Harris C, Marks WJ, et al.: Bilateral deep brain stimulation vs best medical therapy for patients with advanced Parkinson disease: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 301:63–73, 2009