Thank you for listening: Assessing the Feasibility and Accessibility of Collecting Patient Reported Outcomes on Anxiety and Hospital Experience among Inpatients on an Internal Medicine Floor
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
RationalPatient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) are increasingly collected in healthcare settings to capture patient experiences and outcomes. However, few studies have assessed the feasibility of PROM collection among hospitalized Canadians. AimTo evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of collecting PROMs in an urban Canadian inpatient setting. MethodsThe project was conducted in 3 phases. The first phase involved an analysis of a survey of Canadian PROM researchers and an environmental scan of PROMs in use within Canada. In the second phase, input was gathered from a relevant stakeholder including floor nurses to prioritize PROMs and discuss opportunities and barriers for PROM implementation. Participants were a convenience sample of adults hospitalized between October 2023 and March 2024 on the Internal Medicine floors of the Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University Health Centre. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, PROMIS Anxiety 8a and a modified version of the Canadian Patient Experience Survey-Inpatient Care (CPES-IC). Hospitalization information was abstracted from patient charts. Anxiety was classified as normal, moderate or severe. CPES-IC scored were recoded into “Middle/Bottom Box” vs. “Top Box” scores. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed by number of eligible patients; recruitment time, rate, refusal, and retention; and questionnaire completion rate and time. Acceptability among nurses was assessed by their willingness and availability to identify suitable patients; among patients it was assessed by informal comments about completing the surveys. Sociodemographic and questionnaire results were summarized, and groups were compared by anxiety status on using Mann-Whitney U test. Spearman correlations were calculated to evaluate the association between anxiety and CPES-IC domain scores. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between anxiety and selected patient experience domains, controlling for patient sex and age. ResultsThe researcher survey indicated that PROMs were mainly collected for research, with the most common domains being those assessing mental health (56%), physical health (28%) and disease-specific measures (16%). Stakeholders identified the Internal Medicine floor as optimal for the study; nursing staff identified anxiety as an important but unmeasured symptom. Of 360 inpatients assessed for eligibility, 245 were excluded and 15 refused with 100 completing the surveys. The mean age of patients was 59 years, the majority of patients were male (60%), white (67%), college educated (64%), had at least five comorbidities (42%), and were on the floor for 5 days. Two-thirds (68%) of inpatients had at least mild anxiety. Anxiety was associated with significantly lower satisfaction with Communication with Nurses and Doctors; Pain Control; Involvement in Decision-Making and Treatment Options; and Emotional Support.ConclusionA dedicated research assistant could reliably collect information PROMs and PREMs in a subset of hospitalized adults on the Internal Medicine Service of a major academic hospital. Anxiety was common and was associated with reduced satisfaction with a range of patient experience outcomes
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 | 0,027 | 0,053 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».