Preparation for cardiac procedures: a cross-sectional study identifying gaps between outpatients' views and experiences of patient-centred care.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes Pub Date : 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad042
Kristy Fakes, Trent Williams, Nicholas Collins, Andrew Boyle, Aaron L Sverdlov, Allison Boyes, Rob Sanson-Fisher
{"title":"Preparation for cardiac procedures: a cross-sectional study identifying gaps between outpatients' views and experiences of patient-centred care.","authors":"Kristy Fakes, Trent Williams, Nicholas Collins, Andrew Boyle, Aaron L Sverdlov, Allison Boyes, Rob Sanson-Fisher","doi":"10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To examine and identify gaps in care perceived as essential by patients; this study examined outpatients': (1) views on what characterizes essential care and (2) experiences of care received, in relation to cardiac catheterization and subsequent cardiovascular procedures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional descriptive study. Surveys were posted to outpatients who had undergone elective cardiac catheterization in the prior 6 months at an Australian hospital. Participants completed a 65-item survey to determine: (a) aspects of care they perceive as essential to patients receiving care for a cardiac condition (Important Care Survey); or (b) their actual care received (Actual Care Survey). Numbers and percentages were used to calculate the most frequently identified essential care items; and the experiences of care received. Items rated as either 'Essential'/'Very important' by at least 80% of participants were determined. A gap in patient-centred care was identified as being any item that was endorsed as essential/very important by 80% or more of participants but reported as received by <80% of participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 582 eligible patients, 264 (45%) returned a completed survey. A total of 43/65 items were endorsed by >80% of participants as essential. Of those, for 22 items, <80% reported the care as received. Gaps were identified in relation to general practitionerconsultation (1 item), preparation (1 item) subsequent decision making for treatment (1 item), prognosis (6 items), and post-treatment follow-up (1 item).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Areas were identified where actual care fell short of patients' perceptions of essential care.</p>","PeriodicalId":11869,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11112521/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjqcco/qcad042","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: To examine and identify gaps in care perceived as essential by patients; this study examined outpatients': (1) views on what characterizes essential care and (2) experiences of care received, in relation to cardiac catheterization and subsequent cardiovascular procedures.

Methods: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Surveys were posted to outpatients who had undergone elective cardiac catheterization in the prior 6 months at an Australian hospital. Participants completed a 65-item survey to determine: (a) aspects of care they perceive as essential to patients receiving care for a cardiac condition (Important Care Survey); or (b) their actual care received (Actual Care Survey). Numbers and percentages were used to calculate the most frequently identified essential care items; and the experiences of care received. Items rated as either 'Essential'/'Very important' by at least 80% of participants were determined. A gap in patient-centred care was identified as being any item that was endorsed as essential/very important by 80% or more of participants but reported as received by <80% of participants.

Results: Of 582 eligible patients, 264 (45%) returned a completed survey. A total of 43/65 items were endorsed by >80% of participants as essential. Of those, for 22 items, <80% reported the care as received. Gaps were identified in relation to general practitionerconsultation (1 item), preparation (1 item) subsequent decision making for treatment (1 item), prognosis (6 items), and post-treatment follow-up (1 item).

Conclusions: Areas were identified where actual care fell short of patients' perceptions of essential care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心脏手术前的准备:一项横断面研究,找出门诊患者对以患者为中心的护理的看法和体验之间的差距。
背景:为了研究和确定患者认为必要护理的差距,本研究调查了门诊患者:(1) 对什么是必要护理的看法;(2) 与心导管检查和后续心血管手术有关的护理经验:方法:横断面描述性研究。调查对象为过去 6 个月中在澳大利亚一家医院接受过选择性心导管检查的门诊患者。参与者填写了一份包含 65 个项目的调查问卷,以确定:(a) 他们认为对接受心脏病护理的患者至关重要的护理方面(重要护理调查);或 (b) 他们实际接受的护理(实际护理调查)。我们使用数字和百分比来计算最常见的基本护理项目和所获得的护理体验。至少有 80% 的参与者将这些项目评为 "必要"/"非常重要"。任何被 80% 或更多的参与者评为 "必要/非常重要",但结果却被报告为 "已接受 "的项目,即被认定为在以患者为中心的护理方面存在不足:在 582 名符合条件的患者中,有 264 人(45%)交回了填写完整的调查问卷。共有 43/65 个项目被超过 80% 的参与者认为是必要的。其中,有 22 项得到了结论:确定了实际护理与患者对必要护理的认识存在差距的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
3.80%
发文量
76
期刊介绍: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care & Clinical Outcomes is an English language, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing cardiovascular outcomes research. It serves as an official journal of the European Society of Cardiology and maintains a close alliance with the European Heart Health Institute. The journal disseminates original research and topical reviews contributed by health scientists globally, with a focus on the quality of care and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes at the hospital, national, and international levels. It provides a platform for presenting the most outstanding cardiovascular outcomes research to influence cardiovascular public health policy on a global scale. Additionally, the journal aims to motivate young investigators and foster the growth of the outcomes research community.
期刊最新文献
Clinicoeconomic burden among heart failure patients with severely reduced ejection fraction after hospital admission: HF-RESTORE. Trends and risk factors analysis of aortic aneurysm mortality in China over thirty years: based on the global burden of disease 2019 data. Cost-effectiveness of a novel AI technology to quantify coronary inflammation and cardiovascular risk in patients undergoing routine Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography. Regional disparities in heart transplant mortality in the United States. Bacteremia and infective endocarditis following left-sided heart valve surgery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1