Dataset Information

Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: an analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

A recent study identified patients in six distinct response groups based on their evaluations of outcomes related to overall satisfaction, malpractice and benefit of treatment. This study validates the response clusters by analysing and comparing open-ended comments from the extreme positive and extreme negative response groups.

Design

Qualitative content analysis.

Setting

Data from open-ended comment fields provided by patients who completed a national patient-experience survey carried out in Norway in 2011. 10 514 patients responded to the questionnaire and 3233 provided comments. A random sample of 50 open-ended comments from respondents representing cluster 1 ('excellent services'), cluster 5 ('services have clear improvement needs') and outliers ('very poor services') was reviewed.

Results

3 distinct patient profiles were identified. More than half of the comments in cluster 1 included descriptions of positive healthcare experiences, one addressed patient safety issues. Only 1 of the comments in cluster 5 was positive, and 12 were related to safety. All comments from the outliers were negative, and more than three-quarters reported experiences related to malpractice or adverse events. Recurring themes did not differ significantly between the three respondent groups, but significant differences were found for the descriptions and severity of the experiences.

Conclusions

Patients in negative response groups had distinct and much poorer healthcare descriptions than those in the extreme positive group, supporting the interpretation of quality differences between these groups. Further research should assess ways of combining statistical cluster information and qualitative comments, which could be used for local quality improvement and public reporting.

SUBMITTER: Iversen HH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4039827 | biostudies-literature | 2014 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: an analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey.

Iversen Hilde Hestad HH Bjertnæs Oyvind Andresen OA Skudal Kjersti Eeg KE

BMJ open 20140530 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>A recent study identified patients in six distinct response groups based on their evaluations of outcomes related to overall satisfaction, malpractice and benefit of treatment. This study validates the response clusters by analysing and comparing open-ended comments from the extreme positive and extreme negative response groups.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative content analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Data from open-ended comment fields provided by patients who completed a national patient-e ...[more]

PMID: 24879826

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChanging population demographics and technology developments have resulted in growing interest in the potential of consumer-facing digital health. In the United Kingdom, a £37 million (US $49 million) national digital health program delivering assisted living lifestyles at scale (dallas) aimed to deploy such technologies at scale. However, little is known about how consumers value such digital health opportunities.ObjectiveThis study explored consumers' perspectives on the potential value of digital health technologies, particularly mobile health (mHealth), to promote well-being by examining their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for such health solutions.MethodsA contingent valuation study involving a UK-wide survey that asked participants to report open-ended absolute and marginal WTP or willingness-to-accept for the gain or loss of a hypothetical mHealth app, Healthy Connections.ResultsA UK-representative cohort (n=1697) and a dallas-like (representative of dallas intervention communities) cohort (n=305) were surveyed. Positive absolute and marginal WTP valuations of the app were identified across both cohorts (absolute WTP: UK-representative cohort £196 or US $258 and dallas-like cohort £162 or US $214; marginal WTP: UK-representative cohort £160 or US $211 and dallas-like cohort £151 or US $199). Among both cohorts, there was a high prevalence of zeros for both the absolute WTP (UK-representative cohort: 467/1697, 27.52% and dallas-like cohort: 95/305, 31.15%) and marginal WTP (UK-representative cohort: 487/1697, 28.70% and dallas-like cohort: 99/305, 32.5%). In both cohorts, better general health, previous amount spent on health apps (UK-representative cohort 0.64, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.01; dallas-like cohort: 1.27, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.23), and age had a significant (P>.00) association with WTP (UK-representative cohort: -0.1, 95% CI -0.02 to -0.01; dallas-like cohort: -0.02, 95% CI -0.03 to -0.01), with younger participants willing to pay more for the app. In the UK-representative cohort, as expected, higher WTP was positively associated with income up to £30,000 or US $39,642 (0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4) and increased spending on existing phone and internet services (0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.74). The amount spent on existing health apps was shown to be a positive indicator of WTP across cohorts, although the effect was marginal (UK-representative cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.01; dallas-like cohort 0.01, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.02).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that consumers value mHealth solutions that promote well-being, social connectivity, and health care control, but it is not universally embraced. For mHealth to achieve its potential, apps need to be tailored to user accessibility and health needs, and more understanding of what hinders frequent users of digital technologies and those with long-term conditions is required. This novel application of WTP in a digital health context demonstrates an economic argument for investing in upskilling the population to promote access and expedite uptake and utilization of such digital health and well-being apps.

Project description:BackgroundPatient satisfaction with in-person medical visits includes patient-clinician engagement. However, communication, empathy, and other relationship-centered care measures in virtual visits have not been adequately investigated.ObjectiveThis study aims to comprehensively consider patient experience, including relationship-centered care measures, to assess patient satisfaction during virtual visits.MethodsWe conducted a large survey study with open-ended questions to comprehensively assess patients' experiences with virtual visits in a diverse patient population. Adults with a virtual visit between June 21, 2017, and July 12, 2017, were invited to complete a survey of 21 Likert-scale items and textboxes for comments following their visit. Factor analysis of the survey items revealed three factors: experience with technology, patient-clinician engagement, and overall satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the associations among the three factors and patient demographics, clinician type, and prior relationship with the clinician. Using qualitative framework analysis, we identified recurrent themes in survey comments, quantitatively coded comments, and computed descriptive statistics of the coded comments.ResultsA total of 65.7% (426/648) of the patients completed the survey; 64.1% (273/426) of the respondents were women, and the average age was 46 (range 18-86) years. The sample was geographically diverse: 70.2% (299/426) from Ohio, 6.8% (29/426) from Florida, 4.2% (18/426) from Pennsylvania, and 18.7% (80/426) from other states. With regard to insurance coverage, 57.5% (245/426) were undetermined, 23.7% (101/426) had the hospital's employee health insurance, and 18.7% (80/426) had other private insurance. Types of virtual visits and clinicians varied. Overall, 58.4% (249/426) of patients had an on-demand visit, whereas 41.5% (177/426) had a scheduled visit. A total of 41.8% (178/426) of patients had a virtual visit with a family physician, 20.9% (89/426) with an advanced practice provider, and the rest had a visit with a specialist. Most patients (393/423, 92.9%) agreed that their virtual visit clinician was interested in them as a person, and their virtual visit made it easy to get the care they needed (383/421, 90.9%). A total of 81.9% (344/420) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their virtual visit was as good as an in-person visit by a clinician. Having a prior relationship with their virtual visit clinician was associated with less comfort and ease with virtual technology among patients (odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.98). In terms of technology, patients found the interface easy to use (392/423, 92.7%) and felt comfortable using it (401/423, 94.8%). Technical difficulties were associated with lower odds of overall satisfaction (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.76).ConclusionsPatient-clinician engagement in virtual visits was comparable with in-person visits. This study supports the value and acceptance of virtual visits. Evaluations of virtual visits should include assessments of technology and patient-clinician engagement, as both are likely to influence patient satisfaction.

Project description:ObjectiveTo obtain a comprehensive understanding of the job opinions of hospital professionals by conducting qualitative analyses of the open comments included in a job satisfaction survey and combining these results with the quantitative results.DesignA cross-sectional survey targeting all Lausanne University Hospital professionals was performed in the fall of 2013.Material and methodsThe survey considered ten job satisfaction dimensions (e.g. self-fulfilment, workload, management, work-related burnout, organisational commitment, intent to stay) and included an open comment section. Computer-assisted qualitative analyses were conducted on these comments. Satisfaction rates on the included dimensions and professional groups were entered as predictive variables in the qualitative analyses.ParticipantsOf 10 838 hospital professionals, 4978 participated in the survey and 1067 provided open comments. Data from 1045 respondents with usable comments constituted the analytic sample (133 physicians, 393 nurses, 135 laboratory technicians, 247 administrative staff, including researchers, 67 logistic staff, 44 psycho-social workers, and 26 unspecified).ResultsAlmost a third of the comments addressed scheduling issues, mostly related to problems and exhaustion linked to shifts, work-life balance, and difficulties with colleagues' absences and the consequences for quality of care and patient safety. The other two-thirds related to classic themes included in job satisfaction surveys. Although some comments were provided equally by all professional groups, others were group specific: work and hierarchy pressures for physicians, healthcare quality and patient safety for nurses, skill recognition for administrative staff. Overall, respondents' comments were consistent with their job satisfaction ratings.ConclusionOpen comment analysis provides a comprehensive understanding of hospital professionals' job experiences, allowing better consideration of quality initiatives that match the needs of professionals with reality.

Project description:ObjectivesTo analyse free-text responses from the first Scottish Cancer Patient Experience Survey (SCPES) to understand patients' experiences of care, identify valued aspects and areas for improvement.DesignInductive thematic analysis of seven free-text comment boxes covering all stages of the cancer experience, from a national cohort survey.Setting and participantsAdult cancer patients diagnosed across all Health Boards in Scotland between July 2013 and March 2014, and who had an inpatient stay or hospital visit between January and September 2014. 2663 respondents (of n=4835 survey respondents) provided 6961 free-text comments.Main outcome measuresPositive and negative themes of patients' experiences. Differences in the proportion of positive to negative comments by demographics.MethodsData were analysed as follows: (1) comments were initially categorised at a high level (eg, positive, negative, miscellaneous, etc); (2) inductive codes were derived and applied to all relevant comments; (3) codes sharing similar meaning were amalgamated into subthemes, and code frequencies were measured; (4) subthemes were mapped into overarching themes; (5) difference in the proportion of positive to negative comments by demographics were analysed using χ2 tests.ResultsParticipants made more positive than negative comments (1:0.78). Analysis highlighted the importance to patients of Feeling that Individual Needs Are Met and Feeling Confident Within the System. Comments also provided insight into how Processes and Structures within the system of care can negatively impact on patients' experience. Particular issues were identified with care experiences in the lead-up to diagnosis.ConclusionsThis analysis provides a detailed understanding of patients' cancer care experiences, therefore indicating what aspects matter in those experiences. Although the majority of comments were positive, there were a significant number of negative comments, especially about the lead-up to diagnosis. Comments suggest patients would value greater integration of care from services involved in their treatment for cancer.

Project description:BackgroundOpioid use disorders impact the health and well-being of millions of Americans. Buprenorphine and naloxone (BUP and NAL) can reduce opioid overdose deaths, decrease misuse, and improve quality of life. Unfortunately, poor medication adherence is a primary barrier to the long-term efficacy of BUP and NAL.ObjectiveWe aimed to examine patient feedback on current and potential features of a Bluetooth-enabled pill bottle cap and associated mobile app for patients prescribed BUP and NAL for an opioid use disorder, and to solicit recommendations for improvement to effectively and appropriately tailor the technology for people in treatment for opioid use disorder.MethodsA convenience sample of patients at an opioid use disorder outpatient clinic were asked about medication adherence, opioid cravings, experience with technology, motivation for treatment, and their existent support system through a brief e-survey. Patients also provided detailed feedback on current features and features being considered for inclusion in a technology designed to increase medication adherence (eg, inclusion of a personal motivational factor, craving and stress tracking, incentives, and web-based coaching). Participants were asked to provide suggestions for improvement and considerations specifically applicable to people in treatment for opioid use disorder with BUP and NAL.ResultsTwenty people with an opioid use disorder who were prescribed BUP and NAL participated (mean age 34, SD 8.67 years; 65% female; 80% White). Participants selected the most useful, second-most useful, and least useful features presented; 42.1% of them indicated that motivational reminders would be most useful, followed by craving and stress tracking (26.3%) and web-based support forums (21.1%). Every participant indicated that they had at least 1 strong motivating factor for staying in treatment, and half (n=10) indicated children as that factor. All participants indicated that they had, at some point in their lives, the most extreme craving a person could have; however, 42.1% indicated that they had no cravings in the last month. Most respondents (73.7%) stated that tracking cravings would be helpful. Most respondents (84.2%) also indicated that they believed reinforcers or prizes would help them achieve their treatment goals. Additionally, 94.7% of respondents approved of adherence tracking to accommodate this feature using smart packaging, and 78.9% of them approved of selfie videos of them taking their medication.ConclusionsEngaging patients taking treatment for opioid use disorder with BUP and NAL allowed us to identify preferences and considerations that are unique to this treatment area. As the technology developer of the pill cap and associated mobile app is able to take into consideration or integrate these preferences and suggestions, the smart cap and associated mobile app will become tailored to this population and more useful for them, which may encourage patient use of the smart cap and associated mobile app.

Dataset Information

Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: an analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: an analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets