Exploring Patient Perspectives on Bedside Procedures: A Mixed Methods Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION Medical procedures are often performed on patients as part of their hospital stay. Common medical procedures include paracentesis, thoracentesis, lumbar punctures, knee arthrocentesis and central line insertions. These procedures can be performed at the patient’s bedside or in Interventional Radiology (IR). Much research has been done to improve procedural education and patient outcomes. However, little is known about the patient’s perspective. We explored how patients felt about their medical procedures and compared patient satisfaction between the bedside and IR groups. METHODS We conducted a mixed-methods study (May – August, 2014), on consenting medical inpatients that had procedures performed as part of their hospital stay. Participants completed a 13-item satisfaction survey (Cronbach’s alpha =0.99). Patients also had the option of participating in a semi-structured interview. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using principles of grounded theory with common themes identified using open coding. RESULTS Of the 96 eligible participants, 29 (30%) completed the survey and 12 (13%) patients completed the interview. Participants in the bedside group reported less wait time, compared with those in the IR group (median 2 hours, IQR 1-24 versus 24 hours, IQR 24-48 hrs respectively, p =0.009). However, participants in IR group reported higher satisfaction with the time it took to complete the procedure itself (4.91 ± 0.30 vs 4.07 ± 1.14; p = 0.02 where 5 = very satisfied and 1 = very dissatisfied). In addition, patients reported higher satisfaction with their aftercare when returning from IR (p=0.05). Overall, survey results suggests that irrespective of group assignment, participants were satisfied with their procedure (4.79 ± 0.42). Of those who consented to the interview (n-12), the majority of the comments were positive (92%). Predominant themes included communication, attributes of the health care professionals, procedural comfort, efficiency, outcome and timing of the procedure. Some negative comments pertained to patients’ sense of lack of control over information and timing of the procedure, transport and pain during the procedure. Interview results suggest that patients were satisfied with their procedure, but felt a lack of control in the process. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Results from the survey and the interview were concordant as patients reported being satisfied with their medical procedure. We found that there are significant differences between the bedside and IR group that make a profound impact on patient experience including wait time, efficiency and aftercare. The bedside group had higher patient satisfaction with wait times while IR group scored higher on efficiency and aftercare. Both are reasonable trade offs and support the notion that overall satisfaction is similar between the bedside and IR groups. Although patients reported high satisfaction with medical procedures, they noted that transport, timing of procedures, and communication are in need of improvement. Specifically, our findings support the need for quality improvement projects surrounding communication as participant satisfaction on this item varied depending on provider. Good communication can lead to a patient’s improved understanding of their medical procedure [1]. Limitations of this study include that is a single-center study and a small sample size. Overall, patients reported being satisfied with their medical procedures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».