Patient satisfaction* with a vocational rehabilitation team (n = 59 patients)
| Question | Median (range) |
|---|---|
| *1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = fair, 5 = poor. | |
| Usefulness | |
| Contact with the team in general was good | 2 (1 to 3) |
| Contact with the team has been very useful | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Interpersonal approach | |
| Health professionals had respect for me | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Health professionals were interested in me | 2 (1 to 3) |
| Health professionals were very friendly | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Communication | |
| A lot of verbal information was provided about possibilities of remaining in the workforce | 2 (1 to 5) |
| Health professionals listened to my wishes and ideas concerning care | 2 (1 to 3) |
| Professional knowledge | |
| Health professionals had experience with my problems | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Health professionals gave good explanations and advice | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Health professionals had good technical skills | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Health professionals knew what they were talking about | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Health professionals gave impossible advice | 2 (1 to 5) |
| Effectiveness | |
| The programme had a positive effect on my work situation | 3 (1 to 5) |
| The advice given was very useful | 2 (1 to 4) |
| Quality of information: general | |
| Written information about goals and methods was good | 2 (1 to 5) |
| Quality of information: individual | |
| Advice given was clear and practical | 2 (1 to 5) |
| The first meeting was very informative | 2 (1 to 5) |
| Coordination | |
| The team members knew from each other what they were doing | 2 (1 to 5) |
| Collaboration among the care providers was good | 3 (1 to 5) |
| Final report | |
| The results of the programme were well summarised | 2 (1 to 5) |
| The final visit was very useful | 2 (1 to 5) |
| The final report was written promptly after the guidance had ended | 3 (1 to 5) |