A Scoping Review of Adult Inpatient Satisfaction with Mental Health Services
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Patient satisfaction with hospital services has been increasingly discussed as an important indicator of healthcare quality. It has been demonstrated that improving patient satisfaction is associated with better compliance with treatment plans and a decrease in patient complaints regarding doctors' and nurses' misconduct. This scoping review's objective is to investigate the pertinent literature on the experiences and satisfaction of patients with mental disorders receiving inpatient psychiatric care. Our goals are to highlight important ideas and explore the data that might serve as a guide to enhance the standard of treatment and patient satisfaction in acute mental health environments. This study is a scoping review that was designed in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. A systematic search was conducted in the following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EMBASE. A comprehensive review was completed, including articles from January 2012 to June 2022. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included in this review based on our eligibility criteria, such as patient satisfaction as a primary outcome, adult psychiatric inpatients, and non-review studies published in the English language. Studies were considered ineligible if they included nonpsychiatric patients or patients with neurocognitive disorders, review studies, or study measure outcomes other than inpatient satisfaction. For the eligible studies, data extraction was conducted, information was summarized, and the findings were reported. A total of 31 studies representing almost all the world's continents were eligible for inclusion in this scoping review. Different assessment tools and instruments were used in the included studies to measure the level of patients' satisfaction. The majority of the studies either utilized a pre-existing or newly created inpatient satisfaction questionnaire that appeared to be reliable and of acceptable quality. This review has identified a variety of possible factors that affect patients' satisfaction and can be used as a guide for service improvement. More than half of the included studies revealed that the following factors were strongly recommended to enhance inpatient satisfaction with care: a clear discharge plan, less coercive treatment during the hospital stay, more individualized, higher quality information and teaching about the mental disorder to patients by staff, better therapeutic relationships with staff, and specific treatment components that patients enjoy, such as physical exercise sessions and music therapy. Patients also value staff who spend more time with them. The scope of patient satisfaction with inpatient mental health services is a growing source of concern. Patient satisfaction is associated with better adherence to treatment regimens and fewer complaints against health care professionals. This scoping review has identified several patient satisfaction research gaps as well as important determinants of satisfaction and how to measure and utilize patient satisfaction as a guide for service quality improvement. It would be useful for future research and reviews to consider broadening their scope to include the satisfaction of psychiatric patients with innovative services, like peer support groups and other technologically based interventions like text for support. Future research also could benefit from utilizing additional technological tools, such as electronic questionnaires.
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 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 ».