Patient Experiences of Hospital Care in the Context of Comprehensive Care Delivery: A Mixed Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore the care experiences of patients with chronic conditions in hospitals and identify areas for improvement in the context of comprehensive care delivery. DESIGN: A sequential explanatory mixed-method study. METHODS: The study includes a cross-sectional survey (n = 311) and semi-structured interviews (n = 43) with patients with chronic conditions who attended an Australian hospital. Quantitative data were analysed using RStudio and presented using descriptive statistics, while qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. Survey responses were categorised into themes aligned with interview findings and qualitative insights were used to contextualise and explain quantitative results. RESULTS: Overall, the care experience of patients with chronic conditions in hospitals was positive, but there was room for improvement. Ten themes were identified where improvement was needed, including patient inclusion in shared decision-making, patients' needs and care coordination. CONCLUSION: Various gaps in care were identified that affected patients' hospital experiences. Many of these gaps are amenable to change, highlighting significant opportunities for improving patient hospital experiences. IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals should make more efforts to involve patients in shared decision-making, work collaboratively, address both the medical and psychological needs of patients and provide them with guidance and information. IMPACT: The findings revealed the patient'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 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. WHAT DOES THIS PAPER CONTRIBUTE?: This research offers valuable feedback on patients' care experiences in hospital settings following the implementation of the national Comprehensive Care Standard, providing insights into gaps in care and informing global efforts to enhance patient-centred comprehensive care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".