Satisfaction with hospitalization: a comparative analysis of three types of services.
ABSTRACT A study of patient's satisfaction with hospital services was undertaken. The purpose of the study was to explore whether and to what extent patients' satisfaction with three types of hospital services (medical, nursing and supportive) is differentially explained by patient's sociodemographic, psychosocial, situational and attitudinal characteristics. To achieve this, 476 patients were interviewed. The results of the analysis of their general satisfaction with hospitalization and a comparative analysis of satisfaction with the three types of services are presented. The best predictors of satisfaction with all three types of services (in order of their importance) are found to be: perceived improvement in health, size of social networks, satisfaction with organizations in the past, and age. The type of ward (medical vs surgical) is found to be a powerful predictor of satisfaction with physicians and nurses only. Ward effect is also interactive--improvement in one's health predicts significantly more satisfaction with medical services in medical wards than in surgical wards. The findings of this study suggest that when clients perceive that their main goal has been achieved (i.e. improvement in health), they tend to attach little importance to deficiencies in the process of achieving it (i.e. the provision of services).
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients who have worse physical or mental health are less satisfied with their medical care than patients in better health. This article describes research that explores the causal underpinnings of this correlation. Does poor health cause dissatisfaction, or does dissatisfaction cause poor health? And is the dissatisfaction of sicker patients attributable to their own state of mind, or rather to how they are treated by their doctors? It appears that, predominantly, dissatisfaction follows from poorer health rather than vice versa, and moreover that sicker patients negative outlook is a pervasive cause of their lower satisfaction. However, there is also evidence that physicians reactions to sicker patients, in the form of curtailed social conversation, also play a role in the reduced satisfaction of these patients.Current Directions in Psychological Science 01/1999; 8(3):96-99. · 3.93 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objectives To investigate the basic dimensions of patient emotional experience of hospitalization; to identify the moderators of emotional experience in terms of individual characteristics and contextual factors; and to investigate the contribution of the dimensions of the patient emotional experience to satisfaction with f oodservices.Design Survey questionnaire.Subjects/setting One hundred two hospitalized patients of a specialized, acute-care, urban hospital in Canada who required one or more overnight stays. Patients with notable physical, cognitive, or emotional limitations were excluded from the study. Patients admitted to the obstetrics department were also excluded because of the unique nature of their emotional experience of hospitalization.Statistical analyses performed Factor analysis followed by orthogonal rotation (varimax), analyses of variance, and multiple regression analyses.Results Five dimensions represented the emotional experience of hospitalization: positive emotions, arousal emotions, and three negative dimensions structured on the basis of their possible causes (situation-, other-, or self-attributed negative emotions). Individual characteristics (gender, age, marital status, perceived health status) and contextual factors (perceived control over the situation, complexity of medical diagnosis, and admission procedures) significantly influenced patient emotions. Satisfaction with foodservices was structured in technical and interpersonal dimensions; the largest part of the common variance was accounted for by interpersonal aspects. The relationship between emotions and satisfaction was direct for positive emotions and, surprisingly, for situation-attributed negative emotions and self-attributed negative emotions. Other-attributed negative emotions and arousal emotions were negatively associated with satisfaction with foodservices.Applications Results suggest that dietitians’ interventions should be adapted for subgroups of patients who experience different emotions. Results also provide insights on individual and contextual factors that can be used to identify or better understand the specific characteristics of these subgroups. The pattern of relationships between emotions and satisfaction demonstrates that the fine-tuning of dietitians’ interventions as a function of patients’ emotional states may be conducive to increased patient satisfaction with foodservices. J Am Diet Assoc. 1996; 96:354-360.Journal of The American Dietetic Association - J AMER DIET ASSN. 01/1996; 96(4):354-360.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patient reports or ratings are essential for measuring the quality of patient care. Measures designed for this purpose tend to focus on the processes and structures of care rather than the outcomes of it. The latter is arguably the most valid indicator of the quality of care patients receive. Typically this information is gathered by probing patient satisfaction with treatment as part of an investigation of satisfaction with hospital care. More recently patient ratings of the outcome of treatment have been obtained to measure treatment efficacy in clinical trials. However, a more direct approach is to ask patients to assess the benefit of treatment on their current health status. We performed a structured literature review on patient reported satisfaction with outcomes of treatment and direct patient assessments of the same. The purpose of this was to identify suitable candidate questions for a short instrument to tap patient evaluations of in-patient hospital interventions. Articles were included if they dealt with patient satisfaction or patient assessment of outcomes of treatment. Articles were excluded if they dealt more generally with patient satisfaction with care. We identified 169 papers, 79 were included in the review. The findings of this review suggest that there are a number of benefits of directly asking patients to assess the outcome of hospital treatment. Importantly this approach reflects outcomes relevant to the patient and is also more likely to reflect patient report in routine clinical practice. There is also evidence that such approaches have face validity and construct validity. The problems associated with this approach (i.e. response bias), are those common to patient reported outcome surveys, but employing appropriate strategies can minimize them. Furthermore, employing a simple set of questions that asks patients to assess outcomes of treatment they receive can be time and resource efficient in comparison to administering lengthy measures. This approach could be tested for potential generic use as an evaluative measure for patients in hospital settings.Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 01/2014; 12(1):5. · 2.27 Impact Factor