Cynthia Wensley1, Mari Botti2, Ann McKillop3, Alan F Merry4. 1. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. 2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Epworth Deakin Centre for Clinical Nursing Research, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. 3. School of Nursing, University of Auckland, 89-91 Grafton Rd, Grafton, Auckland 1010, New Zealand. 4. Department of Anaesthesiology, School of Medicine, University of Auckland and Specialist Anaesthetist Auckland City Hospital>, 2 Park Rd, Grafton, Auckland 1023, New Zealand.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Comfort is central to patient experience but the concept of comfort is poorly defined. This review aims to develop a framework representing patients' complex perspective of comfort to inform practice and guide initiatives to improve the quality of healthcare. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO and Google Scholar (November 2016); reference lists of included publications. STUDY SELECTION: Qualitative and theoretical studies advancing knowledge about the concept of comfort in healthcare settings. Studies rated for methodological quality and relevance to patients' perspectives. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on design, methods, features of the concept of comfort, influences on patients' comfort. Data were systematically coded and categorized using Framework method. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-two studies (14 theoretical and 48 qualitative) were included. Qualitative studies explored patient and staff perspectives in varying healthcare settings including hospice, emergency departments, paediatric, medical and surgical wards and residential care for the elderly. From patients' perspective, comfort is multidimensional, characterized by relief from physical discomfort and feeling positive and strengthened in one's ability to cope with the challenges of illness, injury and disability. Different factors are important to different individuals. We identified 10 areas of influence within four interrelated levels: patients' use of self-comforting strategies; family presence; staff actions and behaviours; and environmental factors. CONCLUSION: Our data provide new insights into the nature of comfort as a highly personal and contextual experience influenced in different individuals by different factors that we have classified into a framework to guide practice and quality improvement initiatives.
PURPOSE: Comfort is central to patient experience but the concept of comfort is poorly defined. This review aims to develop a framework representing patients' complex perspective of comfort to inform practice and guide initiatives to improve the quality of healthcare. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO and Google Scholar (November 2016); reference lists of included publications. STUDY SELECTION: Qualitative and theoretical studies advancing knowledge about the concept of comfort in healthcare settings. Studies rated for methodological quality and relevance to patients' perspectives. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on design, methods, features of the concept of comfort, influences on patients' comfort. Data were systematically coded and categorized using Framework method. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-two studies (14 theoretical and 48 qualitative) were included. Qualitative studies explored patient and staff perspectives in varying healthcare settings including hospice, emergency departments, paediatric, medical and surgical wards and residential care for the elderly. From patients' perspective, comfort is multidimensional, characterized by relief from physical discomfort and feeling positive and strengthened in one's ability to cope with the challenges of illness, injury and disability. Different factors are important to different individuals. We identified 10 areas of influence within four interrelated levels: patients' use of self-comforting strategies; family presence; staff actions and behaviours; and environmental factors. CONCLUSION: Our data provide new insights into the nature of comfort as a highly personal and contextual experience influenced in different individuals by different factors that we have classified into a framework to guide practice and quality improvement initiatives.
Authors: Ólöf Kristjánsdóttir; Annica Sjöström-Strand; Gudrún Kristjánsdóttir Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-11-28 Impact factor: 3.390