scholarly journals Impact of socioeconomic status on patient experience on quality of care for ambulatory healthcare services in Tertiary hospitals in Southeast Nigeria.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Egi Aloh ◽  
Obinna E. Onwujekwe ◽  
Obianuju G. Aloh ◽  
Ijeoma L. Okoronkwo ◽  
Chijioke Joel Nweke
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Waiting Time ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Patient Experiences ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Tertiary Hospitals

Abstract Background: To determine how socioeconomic factors, such as level of education and employment status, affect patient experiences on quality of care for ambulatory healthcare services in teaching hospitals in southeast Nigeria. Methods: The study is of a cross-sectional design and exit poll was used to collect its data. A pre-tested structured questionnaire was administered to clients accessing care in the outpatient departments of three tertiary hospitals in Nigeria. The assessment of patient experiences for quality of care was based on five (5) domains of care: waiting time; environment of the outpatient department; quality of doctor’s care; quality of care by nurses/other health workers; and responsiveness of care. In addition, the overall quality of care was assessed. Results: The mean rating of patient experience for quality of care for ambulatory healthcare services (outpatients’ care) was 74.31 ± 0.32%. Moderate differences were observed between the hospitals assessed for various levels of patients’ care, especially for waiting time, quality of doctors’ care and overall quality of care. Employment status was a statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) determinant of overall patient experience rating for quality of care, while the level of patient’s education was an influence on the perception of waiting by the patients and their rating of care from nurses/other healthcare providers (apart from medical doctors). Conclusion: The study showed that educational and employment status (measures of socioeconomic status) of patients determined how patients receiving ambulatory (outpatient) healthcare services perceived the quality of care in the hospitals. Hence, in order to ensure equity, there is need to institutionalize patient-centered care, while full consideration is given to the patients’ socioeconomic status.

scholarly journals Impact of socioeconomic status on patient experience on quality of care for ambulatory healthcare services in Tertiary hospitals in Southeast Nigeria.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Egi Aloh ◽  
Obinna E. Onwujekwe ◽  
Obianuju G. Aloh ◽  
Ijeoma L. Okoronkwo ◽  
Chijioke Joel Nweke
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Waiting Time ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Patient Experiences ◽  
Care Giving ◽  
Tertiary Hospitals

Abstract Background: To determine how socioeconomic factors, such as level of education and employment status, affect patient experiences on quality of care for ambulatory healthcare services in teaching hospitals in southeast Nigeria. Methods: The study used a cross-sectional design to collect data using exit poll. A pre-tested structured questionnaire was administered on clients accessing care in the outpatient departments of three tertiary hospitals in Nigeria. The assessment of patient experiences for quality of care was based on five (5) domains of care: waiting time; environment of the outpatient department; quality of doctor’s care; quality of care by nurses/other health workers; and responsiveness of care. In addition, the overall quality of care was assessed. Results: The mean rating of patient experience of quality of care for the ambulatory care (outpatients’ visits) was 74.31 ± 0.32%. There were moderate differences among the hospitals for various levels of patients’ care, especially for waiting time, quality of doctors’ care and overall quality of care. Employment status was a statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) determinant of overall patient experience rating for quality of care, while the level of patient’s education was an influence on the perception of waiting by the patients and their rating of care from nurses/other healthcare providers (apart from medical doctors). Conclusion: The study show that educational and employment status (measures of socioeconomic status) of patients determined how patients receiving ambulatory (outpatient) healthcare services perceived the quality of care in the hospitals. Hence, in order to ensure equity, there is need to institutionalize patient-centered care, giving full consideration to patients’ socioeconomic status. Keywords: Quality of care, Patient Experience, Socioeconomic Status, Hospitals, Nigeria.

scholarly journals Impact of socioeconomic status on patient experience: A cross sectional exit survey of Nigeria Teaching Hospitals.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henry Egi Aloh ◽  
Obinna E. Onwujekwe ◽  
Obianuju G. Aloh ◽  
Ijeoma L. Okoronkwo ◽  
Chijioke Joel Nweke
Keyword(s):  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Socioeconomic Factors ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Waiting Time ◽  
Employment Status ◽  
Teaching Hospitals ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Exit Survey

Abstract Background: To determine how socioeconomic factors, such as level of education and employment status, affect quality of ambulatory patient experience in Nigeria teaching hospitals.Methods: The study design is a cross-sectional exit survey. And the setting were outpatient departments of Nigerian Teaching Hospitals. Assessment of patient experiences for 5 domains of care, including waiting time, environment of the outpatient department, quality of doctor’s care, quality of care by nurses/other health workers, responsiveness of care and the overall quality of care was carried out using structured questionnaire.Results: The mean rating of quality of care or patient experience for the outpatients was 74.31 ± 0.32%. There were obvious but moderate differences among the hospitals for various levels of patients’ care, especially for waiting time, quality of doctors’ care and overall quality of care. Employment status was statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) determinants of overall patient experience rating or quality of care for the outpatients, while the level of patient’s education was an influence on the waiting time perception by the patients and their rating of care from nurses/other healthcare providers, other than doctors. Conclusion: The study observed that socioeconomic factors such as educational and employment status of outpatients to some extent determines how outpatient perceived their experience while receiving healthcare in hospitals. Thus, there is need to institutionalize patient-centered care, giving full consideration to patients’ socioeconomic status.

scholarly journals The Relationships Between Patient Experience and Quality and Utilization of Primary Care Services

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1678-1684
Author(s):  
Jaya Aysola ◽  
Chang Xu ◽  
Hairong Huo ◽  
Rachel M Werner
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Smoking Status ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Process Measures ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Patient Reported

We lack knowledge on how patient-reported experience relates to both quality of care services and visit attendance in the primary care setting. Therefore, in a cross-sectional analysis of 8355 primary care patients from 22 primary care practices, we examined the associations between visit-triggered patient-reported experience measures and both (1) quality of care measures and (2) number of missed primary care appointment (no shows). Our independent variables included both overall patient experience and its subdomains. Our outcomes included the following measures: smoking cessation discussion, diabetes eye examination referral, mammography, colonoscopy screening, current smoking status (nonsmoker vs smoker), diabetes control Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c [<8]), blood pressure control, cholesterol control Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) among patients with diabetes (LDL < 100), and visit no shows 2 and 5 years after the index visit that triggered the completed patient-experience survey. We found that patient experience, while an important stand-alone metric of care quality, may not relate to clinical outcomes or process measures in the outpatient setting. However, patient-reported experiences with their primary care provider appear to influence their future visit attendance.

scholarly journals Primary Care Practice Workplace Social Capital: A Potential Secret Sauce for Improved Staff Well-Being and Patient Experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam T Perzynski ◽  
Aleece Caron ◽  
David Margolius ◽  
Joseph J Sudano
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Job Satisfaction ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Social Capital ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Patient Experiences ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Workplace Social Capital

Patient experiences with the health-care system are increasingly seen as a vital measure of health-care quality. This study examined whether workplace social capital and employee outcomes are associated with patients’ perceptions of care quality across multiple clinic sites in a diverse, urban safety net care setting. Data from clinic staff were collected using paper and pencil surveys and data from patients were collected via a telephone survey. A total of 8392 adult primary care patients and 265 staff (physicians, nurses, allied health, and support staff) were surveyed at 10 community health clinics. The staff survey included brief measures of workplace social capital, burnout, and job satisfaction. The patient-level outcome was patients’ overall rating of the quality of care. Factor analysis and reliability analysis were conducted to examine measurement properties of the employee data. Data were aggregated and measures were examined at the clinic site level. Workplace social capital had moderate to strong associations with burnout ( r = −0.40, P < .01) and job satisfaction ( r = 0.59, P < .01). Mean patient quality of care rating was 8.90 (95% confidence interval: 8.86-8.94) ranging from 8.57 to 9.18 across clinic sites. Pearson correlations with patient-rated care quality were high for workplace social capital ( r = 0.88, P = .001), employee burnout ( r = −0.74, P < .05), and satisfaction ( r = 0.69, P < .05). Patient-perceived clinic quality differences were largely explained by differences in workplace social capital, staff burnout, and satisfaction. Investments in workplace social capital to improve employee satisfaction and reduce burnout may be key to better patient experiences in primary care.

scholarly journals The Patient Experience of Inpatient Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Exploring Patient Perceptions, Communication, and Quality of Care at a University Teaching Hospital in the United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352199774
Author(s):  
Thomas Key ◽  
Avadhut Kulkarni ◽  
Vikram Kandhari ◽  
Zayd Jawad ◽  
Angela Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Disease Transmission ◽  
Inpatient Care ◽  
University Teaching ◽  
Health Board ◽  
Experience Of Care

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated many rapid changes in the provision and delivery of health care in hospital. This study aimed to explore the patient experience of inpatient care during COVID-19 pandemic. An electronic questionnaire was designed and distributed to inpatients treated at a large University Health Board over a 6-week period. It focused on hospital inpatients’ experience of being cared for by health care professionals wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), explored communication, and patients’ perceptions of the quality of care. A total of 704 patients completed the survey. Results demonstrated that patients believe PPE is important to protect the health of both patients and staff and does not negatively impact on their care. In spite of routine use of PPE, patients were still able to identify and communicate with staff. Although visiting restrictions were enforced to limit disease transmission, patients maintained contact with their relatives by using various electronic forms of communication. Overall, patients rated the quality of care they received at 9/10. This single-center study demonstrates a positive patient experience of care at an unprecedented time.

Patient Satisfaction and Short-Term Outcome in Elective Cranial Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 769-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elina Reponen ◽  
Hanna Tuominen ◽  
Juha Hernesniemi ◽  
Miikka Korja
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Term Outcome ◽  
Major Morbidity ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Relationship Of

Abstract BACKGROUND: Patient-reported experience is often used as a measure for quality of care, but no reports on patient satisfaction after cranial neurosurgery exist. OBJECTIVE: To study the association of overall patient satisfaction and surgical outcome and to evaluate the applicability of overall patient satisfaction as a proxy for quality of care in elective cranial neurosurgery. METHODS: We conducted an observational study on the relationship of overall patient satisfaction at 30 postoperative days with surgical and functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score) in a prospective, consecutive, and unselected cohort of 418 adult elective craniotomy patients enrolled between December 2011 and December 2012 at Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland. RESULTS: Postoperative overall (subjective and objective) morbidity was present in 194 (46.4%) patients; yet almost 94% of all study patients reported high overall satisfaction. Low overall patient satisfaction at 30 days was not associated with postoperative major morbidity in elective cranial neurosurgery. Dependent functional status (mRS score ≥3) at 30 days, minor infections, poor postoperative subjective overall health status, and patient-reported severe symptoms (double vision, poor balance) may contribute to unsatisfactory patient experience. CONCLUSION: Overall patient satisfaction with elective cranial neurosurgery is high. Even 9 of 10 patients with postoperative major morbidity rated high overall patient satisfaction at 30 days. Overall patient satisfaction may merely reflect patient experience and subjective postoperative health status, and therefore it is a poor proxy for quality of care in elective cranial neurosurgery.

scholarly journals Quality of Care for Comorbid Conditions During the Transition to Survivorship: Differences Between Cancer Survivors and Noncancer Controls

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 1140-1148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire F. Snyder ◽  
Kevin D. Frick ◽  
Robert J. Herbert ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
Bridget A. Neville ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Breast Cancer Survivors ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Comorbid Condition ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Fee For Service ◽  
To Receive

Purpose Building on previous research documenting differences in preventive care quality between cancer survivors and noncancer controls, this study examines comorbid condition care. Methods Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) –Medicare database, we examined comorbid condition quality of care in patients with locoregional breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer diagnosed in 2004 who were age ≥ 66 years at diagnosis, who had survived ≥ 3 years, and who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. Controls were frequency matched to cases on age, sex, race, and region. Quality of care was assessed from day 366 through day 1,095 postdiagnosis using published indicators of chronic (n = 10) and acute (n = 19) condition care. The proportion of eligible cancer survivors and controls who received recommended care was compared by using Fisher's exact tests. The chronic and acute indicators, respectively, were then combined into single logistic regression models for each cancer type to compare survivors' care receipt to that of controls, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic variables and controlling for within-patient variation. Results The sample matched 8,661 cancer survivors to 17,322 controls (mean age, 75 years; 65% male; 85% white). Colorectal cancer survivors were less likely than controls to receive appropriate care on both the chronic (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95) and acute (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85) indicators. Prostate cancer survivors were more likely to receive appropriate chronic care (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.38) but less likely to receive quality acute care (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87). Breast cancer survivors received care equivalent to controls on both the chronic (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.17) and acute (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.13) indicators. Conclusion Because we found differences by cancer type, research exploring factors associated with these differences in care quality is needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document