Exploring Patient Perspectives on Bedside Procedures: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Medical procedures are often performed on patients as part of their hospital stay. Common medical procedures include paracentesis, thoracentesis, lumbar punctures, knee arthrocentesis and central line insertions. These procedures can be performed at the patient’s bedside or in Interventional Radiology (IR). Much research has been done to improve procedural education and patient outcomes. However, little is known about the patient’s perspective. We explored how patients felt about their medical procedures and compared patient satisfaction between the bedside and IR groups. METHODS We conducted a mixed-methods study (May – August, 2014), on consenting medical inpatients that had procedures performed as part of their hospital stay. Participants completed a 13-item satisfaction survey (Cronbach’s alpha =0.99). Patients also had the option of participating in a semi-structured interview. Transcripts of the interviews were analyzed using principles of grounded theory with common themes identified using open coding. RESULTS Of the 96 eligible participants, 29 (30%) completed the survey and 12 (13%) patients completed the interview. Participants in the bedside group reported less wait time, compared with those in the IR group (median 2 hours, IQR 1-24 versus 24 hours, IQR 24-48 hrs respectively, p =0.009). However, participants in IR group reported higher satisfaction with the time it took to complete the procedure itself (4.91 ± 0.30 vs 4.07 ± 1.14; p = 0.02 where 5 = very satisfied and 1 = very dissatisfied). In addition, patients reported higher satisfaction with their aftercare when returning from IR (p=0.05). Overall, survey results suggests that irrespective of group assignment, participants were satisfied with their procedure (4.79 ± 0.42). Of those who consented to the interview (n-12), the majority of the comments were positive (92%). Predominant themes included communication, attributes of the health care professionals, procedural comfort, efficiency, outcome and timing of the procedure. Some negative comments pertained to patients’ sense of lack of control over information and timing of the procedure, transport and pain during the procedure. Interview results suggest that patients were satisfied with their procedure, but felt a lack of control in the process. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Results from the survey and the interview were concordant as patients reported being satisfied with their medical procedure. We found that there are significant differences between the bedside and IR group that make a profound impact on patient experience including wait time, efficiency and aftercare. The bedside group had higher patient satisfaction with wait times while IR group scored higher on efficiency and aftercare. Both are reasonable trade offs and support the notion that overall satisfaction is similar between the bedside and IR groups. Although patients reported high satisfaction with medical procedures, they noted that transport, timing of procedures, and communication are in need of improvement. Specifically, our findings support the need for quality improvement projects surrounding communication as participant satisfaction on this item varied depending on provider. Good communication can lead to a patient’s improved understanding of their medical procedure [1]. Limitations of this study include that is a single-center study and a small sample size. Overall, patients reported being satisfied with their medical procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".