A Scoping Review of Adult Inpatient Satisfaction with Mental Health Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".