| Literature DB >> 21892945 |
Elisabeth Holm Hansen1, Steinar Hunskaar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate how callers understand the information given by telephone by registered nurses in a casualty clinic, to what degree the advice was followed, and the final outcome of the condition for the patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21892945 PMCID: PMC3177778 DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-19-48
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med ISSN: 1757-7241 Impact factor: 2.953
The six variables concerning the counselling as interpreted from the telephone record and reported by the callers are evaluated for agreement, reported both as actual agreement and as Cohen's kappa
| Telephone record | Caller/Patient | Observed agreement* | Cohen's kappa* | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Did caller get enough time to explain her/his complaints? | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 94 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 94 | NA |
| Did caller get understandable medical advice from the nurse? | 74 | 6 | 6 | 14 | 78 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 82 | 0.39 |
| Did caller get understandable information about what to look for? | 60 | 7 | 14 | 19 | 68 | 4 | 19 | 9 | 73 | 0.38 |
| Did caller get the option to call back, if necessary? | 63 | 2 | 25 | 10 | 79 | 2 | 9 | 10 | 77 | 0.42 |
| Did caller get information on why a patient could wait and see in that particular situation? | 65 | 10 | 6 | 19 | 74 | 4 | 12 | 10 | 76 | 0.32 |
| Did caller get information on if or when to contact their GP during daytime? | 33 | 1 | 48 | 18 | 31 | 1 | 43 | 25 | 82 | 0.63 |
*When Observed agreement and Cohen's kappa were analysed, "not relevant" was recoded to either "no" or "yes". The category "not-relevant" was re-classified to "no" when both research assistant and caller had registered "not-relevant" or when one of them had answered "not-relevant" and the other had answered "no". Similarly the category "not-relevant" was re-classified to "yes" when one answered "yes" and the other answered "not-relevant".
Outcome after nurse's telephone advice, by gender and origin of caller and some characteristics regarding the consultation
| All | Followed the advices | Contacted GP | Re-contact Casualty clinic | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N = 100 | Yes | No | p-value | Yes | No | p-value | Yes | No | p-value | |
| Origin of caller | 0.08 | > 0.99 | > 0.99 | |||||||
| Native Norwegian | 84 | 80 | 4 | 19 | 65 | 10 | 74 | |||
| Others | 16 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 13 | 1 | 15 | |||
| Gender of caller | 0.34 | > 0.99 | 0.07 | |||||||
| Men | 22 | 22 | 0 | 5 | 17 | 5 | 17 | |||
| Women | 78 | 71 | 7 | 17 | 61 | 6 | 72 | |||
| Time of day | 0.009 | 0.47 | > 0.99 | |||||||
| Daytime | 37 | 34 | 3 | 9 | 28 | 4 | 33 | |||
| Afternoon | 42 | 42 | 0 | 7 | 35 | 5 | 37 | |||
| Night | 21 | 17 | 4 | 6 | 15 | 2 | 19 | |||
| Got enough time | 0.06 | 0.39 | > 0.99 | |||||||
| Yes | 94 | 89 | 5 | 20 | 74 | 11 | 83 | |||
| No | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | |||
| Partly | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | |||
| Got worse | 0.53 | 0.039 | 0.012 | |||||||
| Yes | 10 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | |||
| No | 90 | 84 | 6 | 17 | 73 | 7 | 83 | |||
| Got answers to the questions | < 0.0001 | 0.024 | ||||||||
| Yes | 79 | 79 | 0 | 13 | 66 | 10 | 69 | > 0.99 | ||
| No | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6 | |||
| Partly | 15 | 11 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 14 | |||
| Trusted the nurse | < 0.0001 | 0.32 | 0.64 | |||||||
| Yes | 74 | 74 | 0 | 14 | 60 | 10 | 64 | |||
| No | 8 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 8 | |||
| Partly | 18 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 13 | 1 | 17 | |||
Figure 1Follow-up for all 100 callers/patients who received advice from a nurse.