COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION IN HOSPITAL TREATMENT AMONG CARDIOLOGICAL PATIENTS
https://doi.org/10.20996/1819-6446-2007-3-1-28-32
Abstract
Aim. To evaluate satisfaction in hospital treatment among cardiological patients and to compare the received data with results of the program Massachusetts Health Quality Partners (MHQP) Statewide Patient Survey, which is noted for high representation of the data (analysis of 12680 patient questionnaires obtained from 51 medical institutions of the state of Massachusetts).
Material аnd methods. Questioning of patients in internal medicine clinic was carried out. We used Picker Institute questions, the same questionnaire which was used in program MHQP.
Results. 376 patients took part in questioning. Preferences of cardiological patients did not differ from preferences of other therapeutic patients. On such criteria as respect for a patient, organization of treatment, rendering the information and physical comfort, satisfaction of our and American patients is quite comparable. Estimation of emotional support is somewhat lower at domestic patients. Involvement of a family to the treatment process is not sufficient both in our clinic, and in the American hospitals. All the patients were mostly unsatisfied in the process of discharge.
Conclusion. The estimations of hospital treatment made by patients from clinics of different countries are similar very much. The process of discharge has got the lowest estimation by the surveyed patients. The form of final conversation and its environment require further analysis and correction.
About the Authors
Y. G. Shvarts
Saratov Medical State University, Roszdrav
Russian Federation
Chair of Faculty therapy
Russian Federation
Chair of Faculty therapy
E. A. Naumova
Saratov Medical State University, Roszdrav
Russian Federation
Chair of Faculty therapy
Russian Federation
Chair of Faculty therapy
E. V. Tarasenko
Saratov Medical State University, Roszdrav
Russian Federation
Chair of Faculty therapy
Russian Federation
Chair of Faculty therapy
References
1. Jonsen AR The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
2. Cassell EJ The principles of the Belmont report revisited. How have respect for persons, beneficence, and justice been applied to clinical medicine? Hastings Cent Rep 2000; 30: 12–21.
3. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. New York: University Publishing Group, Inc, 1998.
4. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics [4th ed]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
5. Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry. Learning from Bristol: the report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at the Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995. London: Stationery Office, 2001. www.bristolinquiry.org.uk.
6. Cleary PD The increasing importance of patient surveys. BMJ 1999;319:720-721.
7. Morris NM Respect: its meaning and measurement as an element of patient care. J Public Health Policy 1997; 18: 133–54.
8. Thom D., Kravits R., Bell R., et all. Patient trust in the physician: relationship to patient requests. Family practice 2002;19(5):476-483.
9. Kaplowitz K., Johnston M. The effects of physician empathy on patient satisfaction and compliance. Eval Health Prof, 2004; 27: 237-251.
10. Joffe S., Manocchia M., Weeks J., Cleary P. What do patients value in their hospital care? An emperical perspective on autonomy centred bioethics. J Med Ethics 2003; 29: 103-108.
11. Massachusetts Health Quality Partnership. Massachusetts acute care hospital statewide patient survey project. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Health Quality Partnership, 1998.
12. Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S, Walker JD. Using patient reports to improve medical care: a preliminary report from 10 hospitals. Qual Manag Health Care 1993;2:31-8.
13. Coulter A., Cleary PD Patients’ experiences with hospital care in five countries. Health Affaires, 2001;20(3):244-252.
14. Gascon J., Sanchez-Ortuno M., Llor B., et all Why hypertensive patients do not comply with the treatment. Results from a qualitative study. Ann Pharmacother 2004;11:1794-1799.
15. Pollock K., Grime J. Patients’ perceptions of entitlement to time in general practice consultations for depression: qualitative study. BMJ 2002; 325:687.
16. Dowell J., Hudson H. A qualitative study of medication-taking behaviour in primary care. Family Practice 1997;14:369-375.
17. Lewis D., Robinson J., Wilkinson E. Factors involved in deciding to start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinicians’ and lay people attitudes. BMJ 2003; 327:841.
18. Gulbrandsen P.,Hjortdahl P., Fugelli P. General practitioners' knowledge of their patients' psychosocial problems: multipractice questionnaire survey. BMJ 1997; 314: 1014.
19. Neuberger J. Primary care: core values patients' priorities BMJ 1998; 317: 260-262.
20. St Claire L., Watkins CJ., Billinghurst B. Differences in meanings of health: an exploratory study of general practitioners and their patients Family Practice 1996; 13(6): 511-516.
21. Kernick D, Reinhold D, Mitchell A How should patients consult? A study of the differences in viewpoint between doctors and patients Family Practice 1999; 16(6): 562-565.
22. Scheuer E., Steurer J., Buddeberg C. Predictors of differences in symptom perception of older patients and their doctors. Family practice 2002; 19(4): 357-361.
23. Britten N., Ukoumunne O. The influence of patients’ hopes of receiving a prescription on doctors’ perceptions and the decision to prescribe: a questionnaire survey. BMJ 1997; 315: 1506-1510.
Review
For citations:
Shvarts Y.G., Naumova E.A., Tarasenko E.V. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION IN HOSPITAL TREATMENT AMONG CARDIOLOGICAL PATIENTS. Rational Pharmacotherapy in Cardiology. 2007;3(1):28-32. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20996/1819-6446-2007-3-1-28-32
Views:
628
Email this article 