BACKGROUND: The health system responsiveness, defined as non-medical aspect of treatment relating to the protection of the patients' legitimate rights, is the intrinsic goal of the WHO strategy for 21st century. OBJECTIVE: To describe the patients' opinions on treatment they received in hospital, namely: admission to hospital, the role of patient in hospital treatment, course of treatment, medical workforce attitude, hospital environment, contact with family and friends, and the efficacy of hospital treatment in respect to responsiveness to patient's needs and expectations (dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, communication, prompt attention, social support, basic amenities and choice of provider). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data were collected in 2012 from 998 former patients of the randomly selected 73 hospital in Poland. RESULTS: Dignity: Over 80% of patients experienced kindness, empathy, care and gentleness, and over 90% of them had the sense of security in hospital, met with friendliness during the admission to hospital and never encountered inappropriate comments from medical staff. Autonomy: About 80% of patients accepted the active role of patients in hospital, they perceived they had influence on procedures related to hospitalization and course of treatment, and they felt medical staff responded to their requests and concerns. Over 90% of them had opportunity to communicate their concerns to medical staff and to discuss the course of treatment. On the other hand, the explanation of the reason for the refusal to meet their requests was given to only 23% of the patients interested. Confidentiality: 70-80% of patients declared the respect for privacy and confidentiality during collecting the health information and during medical examinations, and were not examined in presence of other people. Nevertheless, only 23% of patients examined so were asked of their consent. Communication: About 90% of patients declared they trusted their physician, received from him explanation regarding the course of treatment and information about further treatment after discharge from hospital, but physicians devoted the time and attention to only 70% of them. Prompt attention: Over 90% of patients perceived simplicity of the formalities of admission to hospital, and short waiting for treatment and additional tests in hospital (but only 50% received explanation of reason if they waited long). Nevertheless, 10% of them % of them perceived they waited for admission to hospital too long, and over 20% for admission to a ward as long. Social support: The unlimited direct and phone contact with family and friends was declared by 96% of patients. Basic amenities: The high percentage of patients assessed positively the marking in hospital (97%) and cleanliness of linen (89%), followed by the general indoor appearance room in which patient stayed, lack of noise (70-80%), hospital meals, furniture (60-70%), availability of personal hygienic articles (50-60%), cleanliness of hospital room, toilet, showers and bathtubs, and availability of soap (40-50%). Choice of provider: Only 41% of patients declared that they had influence on choice of the hospital. CONCLUSION: Responsiveness of Polish hospital patient needs is similar to that of the OECD countries of the lowest health system responsiveness. Compared to the Central European countries, the responsiveness in Polish hospitals is lower than that of Czech Republic and only slightly higher of those of Slovenia, Slovakia and Hungary.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The health system responsiveness, defined as non-medical aspect of treatment relating to the protection of the patients' legitimate rights, is the intrinsic goal of the WHO strategy for 21st century. OBJECTIVE: To describe the patients' opinions on treatment they received in hospital, namely: admission to hospital, the role of patient in hospital treatment, course of treatment, medical workforce attitude, hospital environment, contact with family and friends, and the efficacy of hospital treatment in respect to responsiveness to patient's needs and expectations (dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, communication, prompt attention, social support, basic amenities and choice of provider). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data were collected in 2012 from 998 former patients of the randomly selected 73 hospital in Poland. RESULTS: Dignity: Over 80% of patients experienced kindness, empathy, care and gentleness, and over 90% of them had the sense of security in hospital, met with friendliness during the admission to hospital and never encountered inappropriate comments from medical staff. Autonomy: About 80% of patients accepted the active role of patients in hospital, they perceived they had influence on procedures related to hospitalization and course of treatment, and they felt medical staff responded to their requests and concerns. Over 90% of them had opportunity to communicate their concerns to medical staff and to discuss the course of treatment. On the other hand, the explanation of the reason for the refusal to meet their requests was given to only 23% of the patients interested. Confidentiality: 70-80% of patients declared the respect for privacy and confidentiality during collecting the health information and during medical examinations, and were not examined in presence of other people. Nevertheless, only 23% of patients examined so were asked of their consent. Communication: About 90% of patients declared they trusted their physician, received from him explanation regarding the course of treatment and information about further treatment after discharge from hospital, but physicians devoted the time and attention to only 70% of them. Prompt attention: Over 90% of patients perceived simplicity of the formalities of admission to hospital, and short waiting for treatment and additional tests in hospital (but only 50% received explanation of reason if they waited long). Nevertheless, 10% of them % of them perceived they waited for admission to hospital too long, and over 20% for admission to a ward as long. Social support: The unlimited direct and phone contact with family and friends was declared by 96% of patients. Basic amenities: The high percentage of patients assessed positively the marking in hospital (97%) and cleanliness of linen (89%), followed by the general indoor appearance room in which patient stayed, lack of noise (70-80%), hospital meals, furniture (60-70%), availability of personal hygienic articles (50-60%), cleanliness of hospital room, toilet, showers and bathtubs, and availability of soap (40-50%). Choice of provider: Only 41% of patients declared that they had influence on choice of the hospital. CONCLUSION: Responsiveness of Polish hospital patient needs is similar to that of the OECD countries of the lowest health system responsiveness. Compared to the Central European countries, the responsiveness in Polish hospitals is lower than that of Czech Republic and only slightly higher of those of Slovenia, Slovakia and Hungary.