Dataset Information

Inpatients' assessment of outcome at psychiatric institutions: an analysis of predictors following a national cross-sectional survey in Norway.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The objective was to assess the importance of different types of predictors for patient-reported outcome, both background factors at the patient level and healthcare predictors related to structure and processes of healthcare.

Design

Cross-sectional patient experience survey.

Setting

All 280 secondary care institutions in Norway providing inpatient care for adult psychiatric patients.

Participants

1683 inpatients responded to the questionnaire on-site (73.4%).

Primary outcome measures

The outcome scale of the Psychiatric Inpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire-On-Site was the primary dependent variable. The scale consists of five items relating to overall patient satisfaction, benefit of treatment and patient enablement. Regressions were used to assess predictors, for all patients and for five different patient groups reported by the patients including anxiety/depression, drug-related problems and eating disorders.

Results

Multilevel linear regression for all patients showed that background factors related to overall current state, self-perceived mental health before admission and admission type were the most important predictors for patient-assessed outcome. Poor current state was associated with poor assessment of outcome (estimate: 8.64, p<0.001), poor health before admission was associated with better outcome (estimate: -6.89, p<0.001) and patients with urgent admission had poorer scores on the outcome scale (estimate: 4.40, p<0.001). A range of structure and healthcare variables were related to patient-assessed outcome, the most important being clinicians/personnel understanding your situation, treatment adjusted to your situation and adequate information about mental health condition.

Conclusions

Self-perceived mental health before admission, current overall state and type of admission were the most important background factors for patient-assessed outcome. The most important structure and process variables were related to patient-centred interaction. The background factors should be considered in case-mix adjustments of quality indicators, while the process variables could be used as focus areas in work aiming to improve patients' assessment of outcome.

SUBMITTER: Bjertnaes O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6303571 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inpatients' assessment of outcome at psychiatric institutions: an analysis of predictors following a national cross-sectional survey in Norway.

Bjertnaes Oyvind O Iversen Hilde Hestad HH

BMJ open 20181209 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>The objective was to assess the importance of different types of predictors for patient-reported outcome, both background factors at the patient level and healthcare predictors related to structure and processes of healthcare.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional patient experience survey.<h4>Setting</h4>All 280 secondary care institutions in Norway providing inpatient care for adult psychiatric patients.<h4>Participants</h4>1683 inpatients responded to the questionnaire on-site (73. ...[more]

PMID: 30530585

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: A general trend towards positive patient-reported evaluations of hospitals could be taken as a sign that most patients form a homogeneous, reasonably pleased group, and consequently that there is little need for quality improvement. The objective of this study was to explore this assumption by identifying and statistically validating clusters of patients based on their evaluation of outcomes related to overall satisfaction, malpractice and benefit of treatment. METHODS: Data were collected using a national patient-experience survey of 61 hospitals in the 4 health regions in Norway during spring 2011. Postal questionnaires were mailed to 23,420 patients after their discharge from hospital. Cluster analysis was performed to identify response clusters of patients, based on their responses to single items about overall patient satisfaction, benefit of treatment and perception of malpractice. RESULTS: Cluster analysis identified six response groups, including one cluster with systematically poorer evaluation across outcomes (18.5% of patients) and one small outlier group (5.3%) with very poor scores across all outcomes. One-Way ANOVA with post-hoc tests showed that most differences between the six response groups on the three outcome items were significant. The response groups were significantly associated with nine patient-experience indicators (p < 0.001), and all groups were significantly different from each of the other groups on a majority of the patient-experience indicators. Clusters were significantly associated with age, education, self-perceived health, gender, and the degree to write open comments in the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: The study identified five response clusters with distinct patient-reported outcome scores, in addition to a heterogeneous outlier group with very poor scores across all outcomes. The outlier group and the cluster with systematically poorer evaluation across outcomes comprised almost one-quarter of all patients, clearly demonstrating the need to tailor quality initiatives and improve patient-perceived quality in hospitals. More research on patient clustering in patient evaluation is needed, as well as standardization of methodology to increase comparability across studies.

Project description:ObjectivesPatient satisfaction is an important indicator of hospital healthcare quality. Little up-to-date information of patient satisfaction in China is available. This study attempts to gain a holistic understanding of patient satisfaction in China and identify the key antecedents of patient satisfaction.DesignA cross-sectional national survey was conducted in 2018.SettingHospitals in 27 provinces and 4 municipalities in 4 regions of China.ParticipantsA random sample of 15 699 patients who visited 1304 hospitals were surveyed, with around 500 from each of the 27 provinces and 4 municipalities.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems questionnaire was used to measure patients' overall satisfaction and willingness to recommend the hospital.ResultsWe found significant variation in overall patient satisfaction but little variation in hospital recommendation across the four broad regions. Moreover, we examined determinants of patient satisfaction and their likelihood to recommend the hospital. The overall satisfaction for inpatients and outpatients is commonly influenced by communication with doctors (inpatient: β=0.524, p<0.001; outpatient: β=0.541, p<0.001), hospital cleanness (inpatient: β=0.165, p<0.05; outpatient: β=0.144, p<0.001) and acceptable charges (inpatient: β=1.481, p<0.001; outpatient: β=1.045, p<0.001). Both inpatients and outpatients are more likely to recommend the hospital if there are communication with doctors (inpatient: OR=1.743, p<0.001; outpatient: OR=1.647, p<0.001), acceptable charges (inpatient: OR=2.660, p<0.001; outpatient: OR=2.433, p<0.001). Outpatient satisfaction and hospital recommendation are also influenced by time spent with doctors (satisfaction: β=0.301, p<0.001; recommend: OR=1.430, p<0.001) and waiting time (satisfaction: β=-0.318, p<0.001; recommend: OR=0.844, p<0.001).ConclusionsThere are regional differences of patient satisfaction in China. Patient satisfaction is influenced by a variety of hospital factors and province/municipality factors. The influencing factors of patient satisfaction may not motivate patients to recommend the hospital.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough many surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited amount of nationwide cross-country data available on patients' views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project, NORDeHEALTH.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of patients who accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia.MethodsA cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed using the national online health portals. The target participants were patients who accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022 and who were aged ≥15 years. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant sociodemographics, usability experience, experiences with health care and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offense, opinions about security and privacy, and the usefulness of portal functions. In this paper, we summarized the data on participant demographics, past experience with health care, and the patient portal through descriptive statistics.ResultsIn total, 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9503 (32.40%) were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4713 (16.07%) from Finland, and 2104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with about two-thirds identifying as women (19,904/29,302, 67.93%). Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had older users while Estonia had younger users. The highest attained education and presence of health care education varied among the national samples. In all 4 countries, patients most commonly rated their health as "fair" (11,279/29,302, 38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, whereas Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, most patients received some care in the last 2 years (25,318/29,254, 86.55%). Mental health care was more common (6214/29,254, 21.24%) than oncological care (3664/29,254, 12.52%). Overall, most patients had accessed their health record "2 to 9 times" (11,546/29,306, 39.4%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where about one-third of patients accessed it "more than 20 times" (4571/13,008, 35.14%).ConclusionsThis is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users' sociodemographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. Although the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue to investigate patients' experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined data sets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient experience is an important indicator of quality of health care. In Norway, little is known about the quality of health care for immigrants. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported experiences with general practice between the Norwegian-born population and immigrant groups. METHODS:We performed secondary analyses of data from a national survey on patient experiences with general practice, including assessments of general practitioners (GPs) and their GP offices. The survey was carried out in Norway in 2018-19. The total number of respondents was 2029, with a response rate of 42.6%. Region of birth was available for 1981 participants, and these were included in the analyses ("Norway" (N?=?1756), "Asia, Africa or South America" (N?=?95), "Eastern Europe" (N?=?70) and "Western Europe, North America or Oceania" (N?=?60)). Five indicators of patient experiences were used as dependent variables in bivariate and multivariate analyses, with region of birth as the main exposure variable and other background variables about the patient as adjustment variables: "the GP" (measures related to communication and competency), "auxiliary staff" (politeness, competency, organization), "accessibility" (waiting times), "coordination" (with other services) and `enablement` (GP facilitates coping with/understanding illness). RESULTS:Immigrants as a whole reported poorer experiences with general practice than the majority population, with significantly poorer scores on four of five patient experience indicators. Patients from Asia/Africa/South America reported poorer experiences than those from Norway on the indicators "GP", "auxiliary staff", "accessibility" and "coordination": on a scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is the best, the difference ranged from 7.8 (GP) to 20.3 (accessibility). Patients from Eastern Europe reported lower scores on "GP" and patients from Western Europe/North America/Oceania reported lower scores on "auxiliary staff". These associations were still significant after adjustment for sex, age, self-rated physical and mental health, number of contacts with the GP and education. CONCLUSIONS:For countries with a substantial proportion of foreign-born patients in the health system, immigrant background is an important parameter in quality improvement work. Immigrant background is also an important parameter in health service research.

Project description:BackgroundLength of stay (LOS) for inpatient psychiatric services is an important factor with serious drawbacks when it is extended more than needed. Impacts on economy, social functioning, and stigma can hamper improvement and affect the patients' experiences on future mental healthcare. Predictions of which patients have a higher chance for prolonged LOS have been extensively researched. Previous systematic reviews found consistent predictors of both longer and shorter LOS. However, they do not provide an estimate from the pooled effect sizes. Furthermore, to our knowledge, there is no meta-analysis on the influence of these factors. The primary objective of this study will be to provide point estimates on the effect sizes of all studied predictors of the LOS of psychiatric inpatients.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic search in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO for observational studies evaluating the effect size of independent factors on the length of stay of psychiatric inpatients. Prospective and retrospective cohorts that assess the influence of predictors through the reporting of standardized regression coefficients will be included. We will provide a qualitative synthesis of the findings from each study and perform a meta-analysis from pooled regression coefficients that were adjusted for other variables or confounders in order to obtain a point estimate and confidence interval for all factors extracted from the included studies.DiscussionThe results from this study may provide more accurate predictions for mental health institutions, psychiatrists, mental health service providers, patients, and families on the prognosis regarding the length of stay for needed inpatient care. This information may be used to anticipate individuals with a higher chance for prolonged hospitalization to plan the necessary interventions for these specific situations. Considering both the benefits and disadvantages of longer and shorter stays, the pooled estimates for independent factors may be used by mental healthcare providers and patients for informed decision-making. The results from this study will also update results presented in previous studies and identify the strengths and limitations from the current available evidence.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO ID CRD42020172840.

Dataset Information

Inpatients' assessment of outcome at psychiatric institutions: an analysis of predictors following a national cross-sectional survey in Norway.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Primary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Inpatients' assessment of outcome at psychiatric institutions: an analysis of predictors following a national cross-sectional survey in Norway.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets