The Importance of Being Taken Care of-Patients' Experience with the Quality of Healthcare in a Norwegian Hospital

As recipients of healthcare, patients provide invaluable contributions when assessing quality. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore and describe how patients experienced quality of care during their stay in a Norwegian hospital. In this study, 39 patients were interviewed. The data were analyzed via conventional content analysis. The results showed that patients' experiences of quality were associated with interactions with medical staff, while their physical surroundings had less of an impact. The quality of healthcare was described on a continuum from good to bad. Patients assessed quality positively when they felt they were taken care of. The feeling of not being taken care of provoked feelings of insecurity, resignation, being "overlooked", and inferiority. A prerequisite for patients to feel cared for was staff presence, which enabled and encouraged patients to share their thoughts. This required medical staff to have competency, interpersonal skills, and time accessibility. In addition, a culture that is person-oriented and not task-oriented was valued. From our study, we see the opportunity within healthcare systems to improve the quality of care by having staff engage in active listening, promote an environment of mutual respect, and encourage active participation from patients in their healthcare decisions and plans. This study was prospectively registered with the Norwegian Social Science Data Services on 9 July 2015 with registration number 44034.

Analysis of patients' privacy and associated factors in the perioperative period

Background

Healthcare professionals recognize how to protect patient privacy in order to effectively reduce the occurrence of conflict between the two parties. Therefore, understanding the protection of patient privacy during the perioperative period and the relevant factors affecting privacy is essential to improving healthcare delivery.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 400 perioperative patients. General demographic information, the perioperative privacy scale (PPS), and the Amsterdam preoperative anxiety and information scale (APAIS) were used for the survey. And factors affecting patient privacy were investigated by ANOVA or t-test analysis, Pearson correlation analysis, and linear regression models.

Results

This study found that perioperative patient privacy satisfaction scores were (53.51 ± 12.54). The results of the univariate analysis showed that factors affecting privacy satisfaction included gender, age, and the number of surgeries (p < 0.05). Preoperative anxiety and Information Needs Scale was negatively associated with the perioperative patient privacy satisfaction (r = -0.807, p < 0.01). Further analysis was performed using linear regression models to finally obtain five factors affecting perioperative patient privacy: gender, age, anesthesia modality, the number of surgeries, and the Amsterdam preoperative anxiety and information.

Conclusion

Healthcare professionals working in healthcare facilities need to be aware of the sensitivity of different populations to privacy when protecting patient privacy. Patients' preoperative anxiety and information need status affect privacy satisfaction. This will mean that healthcare professionals will be able to identify key privacy concerns early and take appropriate action.

Clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes, including experiencing of patient safety events, associated with admitting patients to single rooms compared with shared accommodation for acute hospital admissions: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVES

Assess the impact of single rooms versus multioccupancy accommodation on inpatient healthcare outcomes and processes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Google Scholar and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence website up to 17 February 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Eligible papers assessed the effect on inpatients staying in hospital of being assigned to a either a single room or shared accommodation, except where that assignment was for a direct clinical reason like preventing infection spread.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted and synthesised narratively, according to the methods of Campbell et al. RESULTS: Of 4861 citations initially identified, 145 were judged to be relevant to this review. Five main method types were reported. All studies had methodological issues that potentially biased the results by not adjusting for confounding factors that are likely to have contributed to the outcomes. Ninety-two papers compared clinical outcomes for patients in single rooms versus shared accommodation. No clearly consistent conclusions could be drawn about overall benefits of single rooms. Single rooms were most likely to be associated with a small overall clinical benefit for the most severely ill patients, especially neonates in intensive care. Patients who preferred single rooms tended to do so for privacy and for reduced disturbances. By contrast, some groups were more likely to prefer shared accommodation to avoid loneliness. Greater costs associated with building single rooms were small and likely to be recouped over time by other efficiencies.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of difference between inpatient accommodation types in a large number of studies suggests that there would be little effect on clinical outcomes, particularly in routine care. Patients in intensive care areas are most likely to benefit from single rooms. Most patients preferred single rooms for privacy and some preferred shared accommodation for avoiding loneliness.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022311689.

Comparison of experiences of nursing staff and patients before and after move to 100% single-bed room hospital in Australia: mixed methods

BACKGROUND

There is sufficient and consistent international evidence of issues reported by nurses working in single-bed room environments, requiring a design that is not only comfortable for patients but meets nurses working needs. This paper presents a comparison of nursing staff and patients experience prior to a move to 100% single-bed room hospital in 2016 (Stage 1) and actual experiences after the move in 2021 (Stage 2) in South Australia.

METHOD

Mixed method case study design. Survey sample of forty-two nursing staff; twelve patient interviews of their experiences of current environment and; thirteen nursing staff interviews of their experiences delivering nursing care in 100% single bed-room environment.

RESULTS

Nurses and patients highlighted single-bed rooms contributed to patients' privacy, confidentiality, dignity and comfort. As anticipated in Stage 1, nurses in Stage 2 reported lack of patient and staff visibility. This impacted workload, workflow and concern for patient safety.

CONCLUSION

Patient and nursing staff experiences are interdependent, and implications of single-bed room accommodation are complicated. Future impacts on the health system will continue to affect hospital design, which must consider nurses working needs and patient safety and comfort.

Patients' and Nurses' Experiences of All Single-Room Hospital Accommodation: A Scoping Review

AIM AND OBJECTIVE

To identify, examine, and map literature on the experiences of single-room hospital accommodation, exploring what is known about how single-room accommodation in hospitals is viewed by patients and nurses.

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, hospital design is changing to mainly single-room accommodation. However, there is little literature exploring patients' and nurses' experiences of single-room designs.

DESIGN

Scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on scoping reviews.

METHODS

We conducted the search in medical databases for scientific and gray literature. The four authors independently used a data extraction tool to include sources from the searches. The sources were discussed during the process, and in case of a disagreement between two reviewers, the third and fourth reviewer would be invited to participate in the discussion until consensus was achieved.

RESULTS

We included 22 sources published during the period 2002-2020, with a majority (n = 16) during the period 2013-2020. The sources were distributed on 10 different countries; however, England dominated with 14 publications. We found three main maps for reporting on patients' experiences: (1) personal control, (2) dignity, and (3) by myself. For the nurses' experiences, we found four main maps: (1) the working environment, (2) changes of nursing practice, (3) privacy and dignity, and (4) patient safety.

CONCLUSION

We suggested that patients' and nurses' experiences are predominantly interdependent and that the implications of single-room accommodation is a large and complex issue which goes beyond hospital design.

Assessment of nurses' respect for patient privacy by patients and nurses: A comparative study

AIMS

To determine whether nurses respect or violate patient privacy by comparing nurses' and patients' opinions.

BACKGROUND

Although nurses want to respect patient privacy, they can sometimes violate patient privacy or not pay enough attention.

METHOD

This comparative and cross-sectional study was conducted with 357 patients and 305 nurses in 12 public hospitals in Trabzon, Turkey. Data were collected with an information form and the Patient Privacy Scale. Reporting is consistent with the STROBE checklist for cross-sectional studies.

RESULTS

The total mean score of the patient privacy scale was 4.6 ± 0.39 for nurses and 4.5 ± 0.41 for patients, and no significant difference was found between their scores (U = 52999.0; p = .554). Further, the nurses (U = 14358.0; p = .000) and the patients (U = 13272.5; p = .006) in the public hospitals had statistically significantly higher overall privacy scores than those in the training and research hospitals. The overall privacy scale scores were higher and more statistically significant in the patients hospitalised in surgical clinics than those hospitalised in clinics for internal diseases (U = 8514.0; p = .005) and in single compared to married patients (U = 12364.5; p = .034).

CONCLUSION

Nurses respected patient privacy highly according to both nurses and patients, and there was no significant difference between their views. However, nurses working in training and research hospitals and internal diseases clinics need to improve their approaches to patient privacy.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of this study could be used to reduce patient privacy vulnerabilities in complex hospitals and clinics such as training and research hospitals and to improve institutional policies and activities regarding patient privacy. By comparing the results of patients and nurses, the study provided more consistent and accurate data about patient privacy.