Communicating with patients about breakdowns in care: a national randomised vignette-based survey

Kimberly A. Fisher, T. Gallagher, Kelly M. Smith, Yanhua Zhou, S. Crawford, A. Amroze, K. Mazor
{"title":"Communicating with patients about breakdowns in care: a national randomised vignette-based survey","authors":"Kimberly A. Fisher, T. Gallagher, Kelly M. Smith, Yanhua Zhou, S. Crawford, A. Amroze, K. Mazor","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Many patients are reluctant to speak up about breakdowns in care, resulting in missed opportunities to respond to individual patients and improve the system. Effective approaches to encouraging patients to speak up and responding when they do are needed. Objective To identify factors which influence speaking up, and to examine the impact of apology when problems occur. Design Randomised experiment using a vignette-based questionnaire describing 3 care breakdowns (slow response to call bell, rude aide, unanswered questions). The role of the person inquiring about concerns (doctor, nurse, patient care specialist), extent of the prompt (invitation to patient to share concerns) and level of apology were varied. Setting National online survey. Participants 1188 adults aged ≥35 years were sampled from an online panel representative of the entire US population, created and maintained by GfK, an international survey research organisation; 65.5% response rate. Main outcomes and measures Affective responses to care breakdowns, intent to speak up, willingness to recommend the hospital. Results Twice as many participants receiving an in-depth prompt about care breakdowns would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no prompt (18.4% vs 8.8% respectively (p=0.0067)). Almost three times as many participants receiving a full apology would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no apology (34.1% vs 13.6% respectively ((p<0.0001)). Feeling upset was a strong determinant of greater intent to speak up, but a substantial number of upset participants would not ‘definitely’ speak up. A more extensive prompt did not result in greater likelihood of speaking up. The inquirer’s role influenced speaking up for two of the three breakdowns (rudeness and slow response). Conclusions Asking about possible care breakdowns in detail, and offering a full apology when breakdowns are reported substantially increases patients’ willingness to recommend the hospital.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"29 1","pages":"313 - 319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009712","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009712","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background Many patients are reluctant to speak up about breakdowns in care, resulting in missed opportunities to respond to individual patients and improve the system. Effective approaches to encouraging patients to speak up and responding when they do are needed. Objective To identify factors which influence speaking up, and to examine the impact of apology when problems occur. Design Randomised experiment using a vignette-based questionnaire describing 3 care breakdowns (slow response to call bell, rude aide, unanswered questions). The role of the person inquiring about concerns (doctor, nurse, patient care specialist), extent of the prompt (invitation to patient to share concerns) and level of apology were varied. Setting National online survey. Participants 1188 adults aged ≥35 years were sampled from an online panel representative of the entire US population, created and maintained by GfK, an international survey research organisation; 65.5% response rate. Main outcomes and measures Affective responses to care breakdowns, intent to speak up, willingness to recommend the hospital. Results Twice as many participants receiving an in-depth prompt about care breakdowns would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no prompt (18.4% vs 8.8% respectively (p=0.0067)). Almost three times as many participants receiving a full apology would (probably/definitely) recommend the hospital compared with those receiving no apology (34.1% vs 13.6% respectively ((p<0.0001)). Feeling upset was a strong determinant of greater intent to speak up, but a substantial number of upset participants would not ‘definitely’ speak up. A more extensive prompt did not result in greater likelihood of speaking up. The inquirer’s role influenced speaking up for two of the three breakdowns (rudeness and slow response). Conclusions Asking about possible care breakdowns in detail, and offering a full apology when breakdowns are reported substantially increases patients’ willingness to recommend the hospital.
与患者沟通护理崩溃:一项基于小插曲的全国性随机调查
背景许多患者不愿公开谈论护理中的故障,导致错过了对个别患者做出反应和改善系统的机会。需要采取有效的方法鼓励患者畅所欲言,并在需要时做出回应。目的找出影响发声的因素,并在出现问题时检验道歉的影响。设计随机实验,使用基于小插曲的问卷,描述3种护理故障(对铃声反应迟钝、助手粗鲁、问题未回答)。询问问题的人(医生、护士、患者护理专家)的角色、提示的程度(邀请患者分享问题)和道歉的程度各不相同。设置全国在线调查。参与者1188名年龄≥35岁的成年人是从一个代表整个美国人口的在线小组中抽取的,该小组由国际调查研究组织GfK创建和维护;有效率65.5%。主要结果和衡量标准对护理失败的情感反应、畅所欲言的意愿、推荐医院的意愿。结果接受关于护理故障的深入提示的参与者(可能/肯定)会推荐医院的人数是未接受提示的参与者的两倍(分别为18.4%和8.8%(p=0.0067))。接受全面道歉的参与者会(可能/绝对)推荐医院的数量几乎是未接受道歉的参与者的三倍(分别为34.1%和13.6%(p<0.0001)。感到沮丧是更愿意发声的有力决定因素,但相当多的沮丧参与者“肯定”不会发声。更广泛的提示并没有导致更大的发声可能性。询问者的角色影响了三个问题中的两个(粗鲁和反应迟钝)的发言。结论详细询问可能的护理故障,并在报告故障时表示充分道歉,大大提高了患者推荐医院的意愿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信