Calling on the Patient's Perspective in Emergency Medicine: Analysis of 1 Year of a Patient Callback Program.
communication
emergency medicine
empathy
patient feedback
patient satisfaction
qualitative methods
wait times
Journal
Journal of patient experience
ISSN: 2374-3735
Titre abrégé: J Patient Exp
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101688338
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
entrez:
20
12
2019
pubmed:
20
12
2019
medline:
20
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patient-centered approaches in the evaluation of patient experience are increasingly important priorities for quality improvement in health-care delivery. Our objective was to investigate common themes in patient-reported data to better understand areas for improvement in the emergency department (ED) experience. A large urban, tertiary-care ED conducted phone interviews with 2607 patients who visited the ED during 2015. Patients were asked to identify one area that would have significantly improved their visit. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis, and the results were summarized with descriptive statistics. The most commonly cited themes for improvement in the patient experience were wait time (49.4%) and communication (14.6%). Related, but more nuanced, themes emerged around the perception of ED crowding and compassionate care as additional important contributors to the patient experience. Other frequently cited factors contributing to a negative experience were the discharge process and inability to complete follow-up plan (8.0%), environmental factors (7.9%), perceived competency of providers in the evaluation or treatment (7.4%), and pain management (7.4%). Wait times and perceptions of ED crowding, as well as provider communication and compassionate care, are significant factors identified by patients that affect their ED experience.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Patient-centered approaches in the evaluation of patient experience are increasingly important priorities for quality improvement in health-care delivery. Our objective was to investigate common themes in patient-reported data to better understand areas for improvement in the emergency department (ED) experience.
METHODS
METHODS
A large urban, tertiary-care ED conducted phone interviews with 2607 patients who visited the ED during 2015. Patients were asked to identify one area that would have significantly improved their visit. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis, and the results were summarized with descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The most commonly cited themes for improvement in the patient experience were wait time (49.4%) and communication (14.6%). Related, but more nuanced, themes emerged around the perception of ED crowding and compassionate care as additional important contributors to the patient experience. Other frequently cited factors contributing to a negative experience were the discharge process and inability to complete follow-up plan (8.0%), environmental factors (7.9%), perceived competency of providers in the evaluation or treatment (7.4%), and pain management (7.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Wait times and perceptions of ED crowding, as well as provider communication and compassionate care, are significant factors identified by patients that affect their ED experience.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31853488
doi: 10.1177/2374373518805542
pii: 10.1177_2374373518805542
pmc: PMC6908991
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
318-324Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2018.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Références
Ann Emerg Med. 1991 Jul;20(7):734-8
pubmed: 2064093
Acad Emerg Med. 2000 Jun;7(6):695-709
pubmed: 10905652
J Healthc Manag. 2007 Mar-Apr;52(2):109-24; discussion 124-5
pubmed: 17447538
Arch Intern Med. 2002 Jun 10;162(11):1217-9
pubmed: 12038938
JAMA. 1994 Nov 23-30;272(20):1583-7
pubmed: 7966867
Intern Emerg Med. 2012 Apr;7(2):173-80
pubmed: 22009553
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jul;31(7):755-61
pubmed: 26921153
J Qual Clin Pract. 2001 Dec;21(4):109-11
pubmed: 11856405
Int J Qual Health Care. 2008 Dec;20(6):412-20
pubmed: 18801751
J Patient Saf. 2019 Dec;15(4):e60-e63
pubmed: 28650384
J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Oct;20(10):922-8
pubmed: 16191139
Emerg Med J. 2004 Sep;21(5):528-32
pubmed: 15333521
Am J Manag Care. 2011 Jan;17(1):41-8
pubmed: 21348567
J Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):13-26
pubmed: 14751474
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010 Mar;3(2):188-95
pubmed: 20179265
Am J Med. 2005 Oct;118(10):1126-33
pubmed: 16194644
Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Jan;16(1):1-10
pubmed: 19007346
N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 30;359(18):1921-31
pubmed: 18971493
Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2003 Mar;29(3):103-12
pubmed: 12635426
J Emerg Nurs. 2017 Nov;43(6):581-583
pubmed: 29100572
Patient Educ Couns. 2009 Apr;75(1):3-10
pubmed: 19081704
Arch Intern Med. 2012 Mar 12;172(5):405-11
pubmed: 22331982
Med Care. 2009 Aug;47(8):826-34
pubmed: 19584762
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;225:535-9
pubmed: 27332258
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Oct;62(4):340-50
pubmed: 23787210
J Healthc Manag. 2013 Jan-Feb;58(1):47-62; discussion 62-3
pubmed: 23424818
Arch Intern Med. 1994 Jun 27;154(12):1365-70
pubmed: 8002688
Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;11(1):51-8
pubmed: 14709428
JAMA. 1977 Aug 22;238(8):861-3
pubmed: 577973
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Oct;24(5):509-16
pubmed: 22833616
Acad Emerg Med. 1995 Dec;2(12):1057-62
pubmed: 8597916
J Healthc Manag. 2003 Jan-Feb;48(1):62-70
pubmed: 12592869
Acad Med. 2004 Feb;79(2):134-8
pubmed: 14744713
Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Mar;22(3):586-91
pubmed: 8442550
Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Oct;20(6):506-9
pubmed: 12369021
Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Dec;28(6):657-65
pubmed: 8953956
Ann Emerg Med. 2000 May;35(5):426-34
pubmed: 10783404
Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Mar;22(3):568-72
pubmed: 8442546
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010 Apr;26(4):257-73
pubmed: 20401971