Cargando…

Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Although hospital-based outpatient quick diagnosis units (QDU) are an increasingly recognized cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for the diagnosis of potentially serious diseases, patient perception of their quality of care has not been evaluated well enough. This cross-sectio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sanclemente-Ansó, Carmen, Salazar, Albert, Bosch, Xavier, Capdevila, Cristina, Giménez-Requena, Amparo, Rosón-Hernández, Beatriz, Corbella, Xavier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26420244
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1070-2
_version_ 1782392757329854464
author Sanclemente-Ansó, Carmen
Salazar, Albert
Bosch, Xavier
Capdevila, Cristina
Giménez-Requena, Amparo
Rosón-Hernández, Beatriz
Corbella, Xavier
author_facet Sanclemente-Ansó, Carmen
Salazar, Albert
Bosch, Xavier
Capdevila, Cristina
Giménez-Requena, Amparo
Rosón-Hernández, Beatriz
Corbella, Xavier
author_sort Sanclemente-Ansó, Carmen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Although hospital-based outpatient quick diagnosis units (QDU) are an increasingly recognized cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for the diagnosis of potentially serious diseases, patient perception of their quality of care has not been evaluated well enough. This cross-sectional study analyzed the perceived quality of care of a QDU of a public third-level university hospital in Barcelona. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years attending the QDU over a 9-month period were invited to participate. A validated questionnaire distributed by the QDU attending physician and completed at the end of the first and last QDU visit evaluated perceived quality of care using six subscales. RESULTS: Response rate was 98 %. Perceived care in all subscales was high. Waiting times were rated as ‘short’/’very short’ or ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 69–89 % of respondents and physical environment as ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 94–96 %. As to accessibility, only 3 % reported not finding the Unit easily and 7 % said that frequent travels to hospital for visits and investigations were uncomfortable. Perception of patient–physician encounter was high, with 90–94 % choosing the positive extreme ends of the clinical information and personal interaction subscales items. Mean score of willingness to recommend the Unit using an analogue scale where 0 was ‘never’ and 10 ‘without a doubt’ was 9.5 (0.70). On multivariate linear regression, age >65 years was an independent predictor of clinical information, personal interaction, and recommendation, while age 18–44 years was associated with lower scores in these subscales. No schooling predicted higher clinical information and recommendation scores, while university education had remarkable negative influence on them. Having ≥4 QDU visits was associated with lower time to diagnosis and recommendation scores and malignancy was a negative predictor of time to diagnosis, clinical information, and recommendation. DISCUSSION: It is worthy of note that the questionnaire evaluated patient perception and opinions of healthcare quality including recommendation rather than simply satisfaction. It has been argued that perception of quality of care is a more valuable approach than  satisfaction. In addition to embracing an affective dimension, satisfaction appears more dependent on patient expectations than is perception of quality. CONCLUSIONS: While appreciating that completing the questionnaire immediately after the visit and its distribution by the QDU physician may have affected the results, scores of perceived quality of care including recommendation were high. There were, however, significant differences in several subscales associated with age, education, number of QDU visits, and diagnosis of malignant vs. benign condition. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1070-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4589195
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45891952015-10-01 Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study Sanclemente-Ansó, Carmen Salazar, Albert Bosch, Xavier Capdevila, Cristina Giménez-Requena, Amparo Rosón-Hernández, Beatriz Corbella, Xavier BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Although hospital-based outpatient quick diagnosis units (QDU) are an increasingly recognized cost-effective alternative to hospitalization for the diagnosis of potentially serious diseases, patient perception of their quality of care has not been evaluated well enough. This cross-sectional study analyzed the perceived quality of care of a QDU of a public third-level university hospital in Barcelona. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years attending the QDU over a 9-month period were invited to participate. A validated questionnaire distributed by the QDU attending physician and completed at the end of the first and last QDU visit evaluated perceived quality of care using six subscales. RESULTS: Response rate was 98 %. Perceived care in all subscales was high. Waiting times were rated as ‘short’/’very short’ or ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 69–89 % of respondents and physical environment as ‘better’/’much better’ than expected by 94–96 %. As to accessibility, only 3 % reported not finding the Unit easily and 7 % said that frequent travels to hospital for visits and investigations were uncomfortable. Perception of patient–physician encounter was high, with 90–94 % choosing the positive extreme ends of the clinical information and personal interaction subscales items. Mean score of willingness to recommend the Unit using an analogue scale where 0 was ‘never’ and 10 ‘without a doubt’ was 9.5 (0.70). On multivariate linear regression, age >65 years was an independent predictor of clinical information, personal interaction, and recommendation, while age 18–44 years was associated with lower scores in these subscales. No schooling predicted higher clinical information and recommendation scores, while university education had remarkable negative influence on them. Having ≥4 QDU visits was associated with lower time to diagnosis and recommendation scores and malignancy was a negative predictor of time to diagnosis, clinical information, and recommendation. DISCUSSION: It is worthy of note that the questionnaire evaluated patient perception and opinions of healthcare quality including recommendation rather than simply satisfaction. It has been argued that perception of quality of care is a more valuable approach than  satisfaction. In addition to embracing an affective dimension, satisfaction appears more dependent on patient expectations than is perception of quality. CONCLUSIONS: While appreciating that completing the questionnaire immediately after the visit and its distribution by the QDU physician may have affected the results, scores of perceived quality of care including recommendation were high. There were, however, significant differences in several subscales associated with age, education, number of QDU visits, and diagnosis of malignant vs. benign condition. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-1070-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4589195/ /pubmed/26420244 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1070-2 Text en © Sanclemente-Ansó et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sanclemente-Ansó, Carmen
Salazar, Albert
Bosch, Xavier
Capdevila, Cristina
Giménez-Requena, Amparo
Rosón-Hernández, Beatriz
Corbella, Xavier
Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study
title Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study
title_full Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study
title_short Perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study
title_sort perception of quality of care of patients with potentially severe diseases evaluated at a distinct quick diagnostic delivery model: a cross-sectional study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589195/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26420244
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-1070-2
work_keys_str_mv AT sanclementeansocarmen perceptionofqualityofcareofpatientswithpotentiallyseverediseasesevaluatedatadistinctquickdiagnosticdeliverymodelacrosssectionalstudy
AT salazaralbert perceptionofqualityofcareofpatientswithpotentiallyseverediseasesevaluatedatadistinctquickdiagnosticdeliverymodelacrosssectionalstudy
AT boschxavier perceptionofqualityofcareofpatientswithpotentiallyseverediseasesevaluatedatadistinctquickdiagnosticdeliverymodelacrosssectionalstudy
AT capdevilacristina perceptionofqualityofcareofpatientswithpotentiallyseverediseasesevaluatedatadistinctquickdiagnosticdeliverymodelacrosssectionalstudy
AT gimenezrequenaamparo perceptionofqualityofcareofpatientswithpotentiallyseverediseasesevaluatedatadistinctquickdiagnosticdeliverymodelacrosssectionalstudy
AT rosonhernandezbeatriz perceptionofqualityofcareofpatientswithpotentiallyseverediseasesevaluatedatadistinctquickdiagnosticdeliverymodelacrosssectionalstudy
AT corbellaxavier perceptionofqualityofcareofpatientswithpotentiallyseverediseasesevaluatedatadistinctquickdiagnosticdeliverymodelacrosssectionalstudy