Improving hospital safety for patients with chronic kidney disease: a mixed methods study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: People living with chronic kidney disease (CKD) require complex medical management and may be frequently hospitalized. Patient safety incidents during hospitalization can result in serious complications which may negatively affect health outcomes. There has been limited examination of how these patients perceive their own safety. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the safety perceptions of patients hospitalized with CKD using two approaches: (a) the Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS) questionnaire and (b) qualitative interviews. The study objectives were to: (1) assess concordance between qualitative and quantitative data on safety perceptions and (2) better understand safety as perceived by study participants. METHODS: A cross-sectional convergent mixed methods design was used. Integration at the reporting level occurred by weaving together patient narratives and survey domains through the use of a joint display. Interview data were merged with results of the PMOS on a case-by-case basis for analysis to assess for concordance or discordance between these approaches to safety data collection. RESULTS: Of the 30 inpatients with CKD, almost one quarter (23.3 %) of participants reported low levels of perceived safety in hospitals. Four major themes emerged from the interviews: receiving safe care; expecting to be taken care of; expecting to be cared for; and reporting safety concerns. Suboptimal communication, delays in care and concerns about technical aspects of care were common to both forms of data collection. Concordance was noted between qualitative and quantitative data with respect to communication/teamwork, respect and dignity, staff roles, and ward type/lay-out. While interviews allowed for participants to share specific concerns related to safety about quality of interpersonal interactions, use of the questionnaire alone did not capture this concern. CONCLUSIONS: Safety issues are a concern for in-patients with CKD. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches provided important and complementary insights into these issues. Narratives were mostly concordant with questionnaire scores. Findings from this mixed methods study suggest that communication, interpersonal interactions, and delays in care were more concerning for participants than technical aspects of care. Eliciting the concerns of people with CKD in a systematic fashion, either through interviews or a survey, ensures that hospital safety improvement efforts focus on issues important to 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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 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 ».