Patient Experiences with Cardiac Surgery in Alberta, Canada: Results from a Validated Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionResearch shows that a better patient experience may be associated with better outcomes. Most investigations, however, have only examined patients’ overall rating of care, which does not identify individual aspects of care which may be improved. Additionally, little is known about the experience of specific clinical groups in acute care.
 Objectives and ApproachThe study objective was to examine the experience of patients undergoing cardiac surgery across Alberta. Surveys were completed within 6 weeks of hospital discharge, and linked with inpatient administrative records. Study eligibility was determined using Canadian Classification of Intervention (CCI) procedure codes, to include patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), valve replacement, and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (angioplasty). The survey contained 56 questions and assessed multiple aspects of care. Results for each question were classified as percentage in “top box”, where “top box” represented the best possible result (e.g. nurses “always” explaining things in a way patients could understand).
 ResultsFrom April 2014 to March 2017, 1,921 patients completed a survey following cardiac surgery. This included 1,117 angioplasty only (58.2%), 409 CABG only (21.3%), 308 valve replacements (16.0%) and 87 (4.5%) who underwent multiple procedures. Patients were predominantly male (74.2%), over 50 years of age (88.6%) and admitted to hospital urgently (72.7%). The top three performing questions were nurses treating patients with courtesy and respect (91.4% reporting “always”), receiving written information about symptoms to watch out for after leaving hospital (90.9% “yes”), and discussion with hospital staff about help needed once leaving hospital (90.2% “yes”). The three poorest performing questions were hospital room quietness at night (48.6% “always”), staff describing possible side effects of new medications (51.4% “always”), and hospital room/bathroom cleanliness (64.9% “always”).
 Conclusion/ImplicationsOur results provide patient-reported feedback about the perceived strengths and areas for improvement associated with cardiac surgery in Alberta. By linking completed surveys with administrative data, we are able to examine the experience of specific clinical groups, while eliminating additional survey burden for patients.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».