Literature DB >> 30928929

What matters to medical ward patients, and do we measure it? A qualitative comparison of patient priorities and current practice in quality measurement, on UK NHS medical wards.

Samuel Pannick1,2, Stephanie Archer1, Susannah Jane Long1,3, Fran Husson1, Thanos Athanasiou4, Nick Sevdalis5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality metrics selected for public display on medical wards to patients' and carers' expressed quality priorities.
METHODS: Multimodal qualitative evaluation of general medical wards and semi-structured interviews.
SETTING: UK tertiary National Health Service (public) hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen patients and carers on acute medical wards and geriatric wards.
RESULTS: Quality metrics on public display evaluated hand hygiene, hospital-acquired infections, nurse staffing, pressure ulcers, falls and patient feedback. The intended audience for these metrics was unclear, and the displays gave no indication as to whether performance was improving or worsening. Interviews identified three perceived key components of high-quality ward care: communication, staff attitudes and hygiene. These aligned poorly with the priorities on display. Suboptimal performance reporting had the potential to reduce patients' trust in their medical teams. More philosophically, patients' and carers' ongoing experiences of care would override any other evaluation, and they felt little need for measures relating to previous performance. The display of performance reports only served to emphasise patients' and carers' lack of control in this inpatient setting.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap between general medical inpatients' care priorities and the aspects of care that are publicly reported. Patients and carers do not act as 'informed choosers' of healthcare in the inpatient setting, and tokenistic quality measurement may have unintended consequences. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  healthcare quality; medical ward; patient experience

Year:  2019        PMID: 30928929      PMCID: PMC6475203          DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Open        ISSN: 2044-6055            Impact factor:   2.692


  15 in total

1.  Qualitative methods in research on healthcare quality.

Authors:  C Pope; P van Royen; R Baker
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-06

2.  Connections between quality measurement and improvement.

Authors:  Donald M Berwick; Brent James; Molly Joel Coye
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.983

3.  Context-based strategies for engaging consumers with public reports about health care providers.

Authors:  Dale Shaller; David E Kanouse; Mark Schlesinger
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 3.929

4.  Patient portal use and hospital outcomes.

Authors:  Adrian G Dumitrascu; M Caroline Burton; Nancy L Dawson; Colleen S Thomas; Lisa M Nordan; Hope E Greig; Duaa I Aljabri; James M Naessens
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Rethinking medical ward quality.

Authors:  Samuel Pannick; Robert M Wachter; Charles Vincent; Nick Sevdalis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-10-18

6.  Friends and family test should no longer be mandatory.

Authors:  Glenn Robert; Jocelyn Cornwell; Nick Black
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-01-29

7.  The Patient Feedback Response Framework - Understanding why UK hospital staff find it difficult to make improvements based on patient feedback: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Laura Sheard; Claire Marsh; Jane O'Hara; Gerry Armitage; John Wright; Rebecca Lawton
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 4.634

8.  Considering chance in quality and safety performance measures: an analysis of performance reports by boards in English NHS trusts.

Authors:  Kelly Ann Schmidtke; Alan J Poots; Juan Carpio; Ivo Vlaev; Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala; Richard J Lilford
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 7.035

9.  Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention.

Authors:  Rebecca Lawton; Jane Kathryn O'Hara; Laura Sheard; Gerry Armitage; Kim Cocks; Hannah Buckley; Belen Corbacho; Caroline Reynolds; Claire Marsh; Sally Moore; Ian Watt; John Wright
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 7.035

10.  Considerations and recommendations for conducting qualitative research interviews with palliative and end-of-life care patients in the home setting: a consensus paper.

Authors:  Stephanie Sivell; Hayley Prout; Noreen Hopewell-Kelly; Jessica Baillie; Anthony Byrne; Michelle Edwards; Emily Harrop; Simon Noble; Catherine Sampson; Annmarie Nelson
Journal:  BMJ Support Palliat Care       Date:  2015-12-08       Impact factor: 3.568

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Incentivizing performance in health care: a rapid review, typology and qualitative study of unintended consequences.

Authors:  Xinyu Li; Jenna M Evans
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2022-05-23       Impact factor: 2.908

2.  From "stuck" to satisfied: Aboriginal people's experience of culturally safe care with interpreters in a Northern Territory hospital.

Authors:  Vicki Kerrigan; Stuart Yiwarr McGrath; Sandawana William Majoni; Michelle Walker; Mandy Ahmat; Bilawara Lee; Alan Cass; Marita Hefler; Anna P Ralph
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.655

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.