病人的满意度。

Gillian A. Corbett, T. McGuigan
{"title":"病人的满意度。","authors":"Gillian A. Corbett, T. McGuigan","doi":"10.1002/9781119057840.ch90","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To the Editor: In their survey of patient satisfaction with intravenous PCA or epidural morphine, Egan and Ready conclude that satisfaction is very high with both modalities, but the perceived advantages and disadvantages differ, t While I share the authors' enthusiasm for both techniques, I feel there are some methodological concerns which may limit the validity of the conclusions. The authors reported differences between the two patient groups with respect to advantages, disadvantages and patient satisfaction. I question if such comparisons are valid when the demographics of the two groups studied are so clearly different; the PCA group was, on average, nine years younger than the epidural group, and presumably represented a different case mix. Although not reported, it is reasonable to assume that the patients undergoing more serious surgery were also more likely to receive epidural narcotics postoperatively. Within each group the authors have identified relative advantages and disadvantages perceived by the patients. However, on the basis of the very considerable demographic differences, I would argue that no valid between-group comparisons of PCA versus epidural narcotics are possible. The authors also state that\" ... patients converted from one form of therapy to the other for any reason were excluded.\" This would seem to bias the reported satisfaction scores, since the only obvious reason for a change in therapy is patient or physician dissatisfaction. It would be useful to know how often this occurred. Quite tightly, Egan and Ready point out that, \"Although patients willingly offer (satisfaction) ratings, it is by no means clear what such ratings represent.\" This is further illustrated in a randomized prospective study of PCA versus im morphine in patients following hip arthroplasty. 2 In both groups, the patients reported satisfaction scores of approximately nine out of ten, yet pain control assessed using visual analogue scores for both intensity and distress was often inadequate. In fact, the highest satisfaction score was coincident with the worst reported pain. Barring the most egregious errors, one suspects that if your patient likes you, reported satisfaction will be high.","PeriodicalId":94315,"journal":{"name":"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient satisfaction.\",\"authors\":\"Gillian A. Corbett, T. McGuigan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/9781119057840.ch90\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To the Editor: In their survey of patient satisfaction with intravenous PCA or epidural morphine, Egan and Ready conclude that satisfaction is very high with both modalities, but the perceived advantages and disadvantages differ, t While I share the authors' enthusiasm for both techniques, I feel there are some methodological concerns which may limit the validity of the conclusions. The authors reported differences between the two patient groups with respect to advantages, disadvantages and patient satisfaction. I question if such comparisons are valid when the demographics of the two groups studied are so clearly different; the PCA group was, on average, nine years younger than the epidural group, and presumably represented a different case mix. Although not reported, it is reasonable to assume that the patients undergoing more serious surgery were also more likely to receive epidural narcotics postoperatively. Within each group the authors have identified relative advantages and disadvantages perceived by the patients. However, on the basis of the very considerable demographic differences, I would argue that no valid between-group comparisons of PCA versus epidural narcotics are possible. The authors also state that\\\" ... patients converted from one form of therapy to the other for any reason were excluded.\\\" This would seem to bias the reported satisfaction scores, since the only obvious reason for a change in therapy is patient or physician dissatisfaction. It would be useful to know how often this occurred. Quite tightly, Egan and Ready point out that, \\\"Although patients willingly offer (satisfaction) ratings, it is by no means clear what such ratings represent.\\\" This is further illustrated in a randomized prospective study of PCA versus im morphine in patients following hip arthroplasty. 2 In both groups, the patients reported satisfaction scores of approximately nine out of ten, yet pain control assessed using visual analogue scores for both intensity and distress was often inadequate. In fact, the highest satisfaction score was coincident with the worst reported pain. Barring the most egregious errors, one suspects that if your patient likes you, reported satisfaction will be high.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057840.ch90\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency nurse : the journal of the RCN Accident and Emergency Nursing Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057840.ch90","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

致编辑:在他们对静脉注射PCA或硬膜外吗啡患者满意度的调查中,Egan和Ready得出结论,两种方式的满意度都非常高,但感知到的优点和缺点不同。虽然我和作者一样对这两种技术充满热情,但我觉得有一些方法上的问题可能会限制结论的有效性。作者报告了两组患者在优势、劣势和患者满意度方面的差异。我怀疑这种比较是否有效,因为两组研究对象的人口统计学差异如此明显;PCA组平均比硬膜外组年轻9岁,可能代表了不同的病例组合。虽然没有报道,但有理由认为,接受更严重手术的患者也更有可能在术后接受硬膜外麻醉。在每一组中,作者都确定了患者认为的相对优势和劣势。然而,基于相当大的人口统计学差异,我认为PCA与硬膜外麻醉药的组间比较不可能有效。作者还指出“……无论出于何种原因,从一种疗法转为另一种疗法的患者都被排除在外。”这似乎会使报告的满意度得分产生偏差,因为改变治疗的唯一明显原因是患者或医生的不满意。了解这种情况发生的频率是很有用的。伊根和雷迪非常严密地指出:“尽管患者愿意提供(满意度)评级,但这些评级代表什么却根本不清楚。”这在一项随机前瞻性研究中进一步证明了PCA与吗啡在髋关节置换术后的疗效。在两组中,患者报告的满意度得分约为9分(满分10分),但使用视觉模拟评分评估疼痛控制的强度和痛苦往往是不足的。事实上,满意度得分最高的时候,报告的疼痛也最严重。除了最严重的错误外,人们怀疑如果你的病人喜欢你,报告的满意度会很高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Patient satisfaction.
To the Editor: In their survey of patient satisfaction with intravenous PCA or epidural morphine, Egan and Ready conclude that satisfaction is very high with both modalities, but the perceived advantages and disadvantages differ, t While I share the authors' enthusiasm for both techniques, I feel there are some methodological concerns which may limit the validity of the conclusions. The authors reported differences between the two patient groups with respect to advantages, disadvantages and patient satisfaction. I question if such comparisons are valid when the demographics of the two groups studied are so clearly different; the PCA group was, on average, nine years younger than the epidural group, and presumably represented a different case mix. Although not reported, it is reasonable to assume that the patients undergoing more serious surgery were also more likely to receive epidural narcotics postoperatively. Within each group the authors have identified relative advantages and disadvantages perceived by the patients. However, on the basis of the very considerable demographic differences, I would argue that no valid between-group comparisons of PCA versus epidural narcotics are possible. The authors also state that" ... patients converted from one form of therapy to the other for any reason were excluded." This would seem to bias the reported satisfaction scores, since the only obvious reason for a change in therapy is patient or physician dissatisfaction. It would be useful to know how often this occurred. Quite tightly, Egan and Ready point out that, "Although patients willingly offer (satisfaction) ratings, it is by no means clear what such ratings represent." This is further illustrated in a randomized prospective study of PCA versus im morphine in patients following hip arthroplasty. 2 In both groups, the patients reported satisfaction scores of approximately nine out of ten, yet pain control assessed using visual analogue scores for both intensity and distress was often inadequate. In fact, the highest satisfaction score was coincident with the worst reported pain. Barring the most egregious errors, one suspects that if your patient likes you, reported satisfaction will be high.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring the effects of emergency department crowding on emergency nurses. Exploring the benefits and limitations of using telemedicine in unscheduled care. Using body-worn cameras in emergency departments: a pilot project. Reducing the burden on Welsh ambulance services and emergency departments: a mental health 999 clinical support desk initiative. Developing and evaluating a major trauma course and coaching programme for ward nurses.
×
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