Hospital Experiences of Carers in Relation to the Comprehensive Care Standard: A Mixed Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore the care experiences of informal carers of people with chronic conditions in hospitals and identify areas for improvement in the context of comprehensive care delivery. DESIGN: A explanatory sequential mixed-method study. METHODS: This study was conducted, involving a survey with 182 carers and interviews with 31 carers of individuals who attended an Australian hospital. Descriptive analysis of quantitative data was performed using RStudio, while thematic analysis of qualitative data was conducted using NVivo. RESULTS: The findings revealed seven overarching components of care that influenced carers' hospital experiences and their perceptions of care quality. Areas requiring improvement were identified within these categories. CONCLUSION: This review identifies common perspectives of informal carers of people with chronic conditions in hospital settings and highlights important areas that require attention to improve carers' hospital care experiences. Carers should be welcomed, involved, informed and supported during hospital attendance to foster the most positive care experiences. IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals should involve carers in assessment, shared decision-making and the care process and recognise and address carers' needs. IMPACT: The findings revealed the carer's hospital experiences in the context of comprehensive care delivery and identified areas requiring improvement. REPORTING METHOD: The CROSS and the COREQ guidelines were followed. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study protocol was presented to stakeholders from two hospitals in Australia, a Patient and Carer Advisory Board (attached to the parent project: evaluating Quality of Care (eQC)) and the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care, and discussions were held to assess the relevance and significance of this study to clinical practice and health policy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".