BACKGROUND: Little is known about how often patients desire and experience discussions with hospital personnel regarding R/S (religion and spirituality) or what effects such discussions have on patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We examined data from the University of Chicago Hospitalist Study, which gathers sociodemographic and clinical information from all consenting general internal medicine patients at the University of Chicago Medical Center. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were whether or not patients desired to have their religious or spiritual concerns addressed while hospitalized, whether or not anyone talked to them about religious and spiritual issues, and which member of the health care team spoke with them about these issues. Primary predictors were patients' ratings of their religious attendance, their efforts to carry their religious beliefs over into other dealings in life, and their spirituality. KEY RESULTS: Forty-one percent of inpatients desired a discussion of R/S concerns while hospitalized, but only half of those reported having such a discussion. Overall, 32% of inpatients reported having a discussion of their R/S concerns. Religious patients and those experiencing more severe pain were more likely both to desire and to have discussions of spiritual concerns. Patients who had discussions of R/S concerns were more likely to rate their care at the highest level on four different measures of patient satisfaction, regardless of whether or not they said they had desired such a discussion (odds ratios 1.4-2.2, 95% confidence intervals 1.1-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that many more inpatients desire conversations about R/S than have them. Health care professionals might improve patients' overall experience with being hospitalized and patient satisfaction by addressing this unmet patient need.
BACKGROUND: Little is known about how often patients desire and experience discussions with hospital personnel regarding R/S (religion and spirituality) or what effects such discussions have on patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We examined data from the University of Chicago Hospitalist Study, which gathers sociodemographic and clinical information from all consenting general internal medicine patients at the University of Chicago Medical Center. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were whether or not patients desired to have their religious or spiritual concerns addressed while hospitalized, whether or not anyone talked to them about religious and spiritual issues, and which member of the health care team spoke with them about these issues. Primary predictors were patients' ratings of their religious attendance, their efforts to carry their religious beliefs over into other dealings in life, and their spirituality. KEY RESULTS: Forty-one percent of inpatients desired a discussion of R/S concerns while hospitalized, but only half of those reported having such a discussion. Overall, 32% of inpatients reported having a discussion of their R/S concerns. Religious patients and those experiencing more severe pain were more likely both to desire and to have discussions of spiritual concerns. Patients who had discussions of R/S concerns were more likely to rate their care at the highest level on four different measures of patient satisfaction, regardless of whether or not they said they had desired such a discussion (odds ratios 1.4-2.2, 95% confidence intervals 1.1-3.0). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that many more inpatients desire conversations about R/S than have them. Health care professionals might improve patients' overall experience with being hospitalized and patient satisfaction by addressing this unmet patient need.
Authors: Tracy Balboni; Michael Balboni; M Elizabeth Paulk; Andrea Phelps; Alexi Wright; John Peteet; Susan Block; Chris Lathan; Tyler Vanderweele; Holly Prigerson Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Moadel; C Morgan; A Fatone; J Grennan; J Carter; G Laruffa; A Skummy; J Dutcher Journal: Psychooncology Date: 1999 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: David Meltzer; Willard G Manning; Jeanette Morrison; Manish N Shah; Lei Jin; Todd Guth; Wendy Levinson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-12-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bernard Lo; Delaney Ruston; Laura W Kates; Robert M Arnold; Cynthia B Cohen; Kathy Faber-Langendoen; Steven Z Pantilat; Christina M Puchalski; Timothy R Quill; Michael W Rabow; Simeon Schreiber; Daniel P Sulmasy; James A Tulsky Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Charles D MacLean; Beth Susi; Nancy Phifer; Linda Schultz; Deborah Bynum; Mark Franco; Andria Klioze; Michael Monroe; Joanne Garrett; Sam Cykert Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael H Monroe; Deborah Bynum; Beth Susi; Nancy Phifer; Linda Schultz; Mark Franco; Charles D MacLean; Sam Cykert; Joanne Garrett Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2003 Dec 8-22
Authors: Kyle E Karches; Grace S Chung; Vineet Arora; David O Meltzer; Farr A Curlin Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jason M Satterfield; Sylvia Bereknyei; Joan F Hilton; Alyssa L Bogetz; Rebecca Blankenburg; Sara M Buckelew; H Carrie Chen; Bradley Monash; Jacqueline S Ramos; Stephanie Rennke; Clarence H Braddock Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Michael J Balboni; Adam Sullivan; Adaugo Amobi; Andrea C Phelps; Daniel P Gorman; Angelika Zollfrank; John R Peteet; Holly G Prigerson; Tyler J Vanderweele; Tracy A Balboni Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-12-17 Impact factor: 44.544