Parental Perspectives on Pediatric Surgical Recovery: Narrative Analysis of Free-Text Comments From a Postoperative Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Qualitative experience data can inform health care providers how to best support families during pediatric postoperative recovery. Patient experience data can also provide actionable information to guide health care quality improvement; positive feedback can confirm the efficacy of current practices and systems, while negative comments can identify areas for improvement. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand families' perspectives regarding their children's surgical recovery using qualitative patient experience data (free-text comments) from a prospective cohort study conducted within a larger study developing a postoperative-outcome risk stratification model. METHODS: Participants were parents or guardians of children aged 0-18 years who underwent surgery at a pediatric tertiary care facility; children undergoing either outpatient or inpatient procedures were eligible to be enrolled. Participants with English as a second language were offered translational services during the consent process and were included if any family member could translate the surveys into their preferred language. Participants were ineligible if they and their families could not understand English or the child had a neurodevelopmental disability. Perioperative data were collected from families using web-based surveys, including 1 preoperative survey and follow-up surveys sent on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, 7, 15, 30, and 90. Surveys were completed until the family indicated the child was fully recovered or until postoperative day 90 was reached. Follow-up surveys included opportunities to leave free-text comments on the child's surgical experience. RESULTS: In total, 91% (453/500) of enrolled families completed at least 1 postoperative survey; 53% (242/453) provided at least 1 free-text comment and were included in the presented analysis, based on a total of 485 comments. The patient's age distribution was bimodal (modes at 2-3 and 14-15 years), with 66% (160/242) being male. Patients underwent orthopedic (60/242, 25%), urological (39/242, 16%), general (36/242,15%), otolaryngological (31/242, 13%), ophthalmological (32/242, 13%), dental (27/242, 11%), and plastic (17/242, 7%) surgeries. Largely positive comments (398/485, 82%) were made on the recovery and clinical care experience. A key theme for improvement included "communication," with subthemes highlighting parental concerns regarding the "preoperative discussions," "clarity of discharge instructions," and "continuity of care." Other themes included "length of stay" and "recovery experience." Feedback also suggested survey design amendments for future iterations of this instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Collecting parental recovery feedback is feasible and valued by families. Findings underscored the significance of enhancing communication strategies between health care providers and parents to align expectations and support proactive family-centered care. Our postoperative surveys allowed families to provide actionable suggestions for improving their experience, which may not have been considered during their hospital encounter. Our longitudinal survey protocol may be expanded to support continuous quality improvement initiatives involving near-real-time patient feedback to improve the health care experience of patients and families.
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 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».