围手术期麻醉师与外科病人沟通的质量:埃塞俄比亚一家三级专科医院的调查

IF 2.6 Q1 SURGERY
Yophtahe Woldegerima Berhe, Temesgen Agegnehu, Mulualem Endeshaw, Nurhusen Riskey, Getasew Kassaw
{"title":"围手术期麻醉师与外科病人沟通的质量:埃塞俄比亚一家三级专科医院的调查","authors":"Yophtahe Woldegerima Berhe,&nbsp;Temesgen Agegnehu,&nbsp;Mulualem Endeshaw,&nbsp;Nurhusen Riskey,&nbsp;Getasew Kassaw","doi":"10.1186/s13037-023-00361-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective communication is a fundamental step in providing best medical care and recognized as vital component of clinical anesthesia practice. Poor communication adversely affects patients' safety and outcome. The objective of this study was to investigate the quality of anesthetist communication from patients' perspectives at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (UoGCSH), Northwest Ethiopia.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 423 surgical patients from April 1, - May 30, 2021. Perioperative patient-anesthetist communication (PPAC) was measured by using 15-items Communication Assessment Tool graded by 5-points Likert scale. Data collection was executed during postoperative time as the patients were optimally recovered from anesthesia. The collected data were cleaned and descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 400 (94.6% response rate) patients included and 226 (56.7%) were female. The median (IQR) age was 30 (25 - 40) years. Three-hundreds and sixty-one (90.3%) patients had reported good PPAC and 39 (9.8%) reported poor PPAC. The median (IQR) of PPAC scores was 53.0 (48.0 - 57.0) and range from 27 to 69. Highest mean score was observed for the item \"Talked in terms I could understand\" (4.3 ± 0.7). Lowest mean scores were observed for the item \"Checked to be sure I understood everything\" (1.9 ± 0.9). Patients who had underwent emergency surgery, no previous anesthetic exposure, had significant preoperative anxiety, no history of previous hospital admission, and moderate-severe preoperative pain were found to have poor PPAC compared to their counterparts in the proportions of 82.1%, 79.5%, 69.2%, 64.1%, and 59.0% respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was good PPAC in our hospital from patients' perspective. However, there should be improvements in checking the degree of understanding of the delivered information, encouraging to question, disclosing next steps and involving in decision-making. Patients who underwent emergency surgery, had no previous anesthetic exposure, had clinically significant level of preoperative anxiety, had no history of previous hospital admission, and had moderate-severe preoperative pain were found to have poor PPAC.</p>","PeriodicalId":46782,"journal":{"name":"Patient Safety in Surgery","volume":"17 1","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198025/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of anesthetist communication with surgical patients in the perioperative setting: a survey at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Ethiopia.\",\"authors\":\"Yophtahe Woldegerima Berhe,&nbsp;Temesgen Agegnehu,&nbsp;Mulualem Endeshaw,&nbsp;Nurhusen Riskey,&nbsp;Getasew Kassaw\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13037-023-00361-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective communication is a fundamental step in providing best medical care and recognized as vital component of clinical anesthesia practice. Poor communication adversely affects patients' safety and outcome. The objective of this study was to investigate the quality of anesthetist communication from patients' perspectives at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (UoGCSH), Northwest Ethiopia.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 423 surgical patients from April 1, - May 30, 2021. Perioperative patient-anesthetist communication (PPAC) was measured by using 15-items Communication Assessment Tool graded by 5-points Likert scale. Data collection was executed during postoperative time as the patients were optimally recovered from anesthesia. The collected data were cleaned and descriptive analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 400 (94.6% response rate) patients included and 226 (56.7%) were female. The median (IQR) age was 30 (25 - 40) years. Three-hundreds and sixty-one (90.3%) patients had reported good PPAC and 39 (9.8%) reported poor PPAC. The median (IQR) of PPAC scores was 53.0 (48.0 - 57.0) and range from 27 to 69. Highest mean score was observed for the item \\\"Talked in terms I could understand\\\" (4.3 ± 0.7). Lowest mean scores were observed for the item \\\"Checked to be sure I understood everything\\\" (1.9 ± 0.9). Patients who had underwent emergency surgery, no previous anesthetic exposure, had significant preoperative anxiety, no history of previous hospital admission, and moderate-severe preoperative pain were found to have poor PPAC compared to their counterparts in the proportions of 82.1%, 79.5%, 69.2%, 64.1%, and 59.0% respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was good PPAC in our hospital from patients' perspective. However, there should be improvements in checking the degree of understanding of the delivered information, encouraging to question, disclosing next steps and involving in decision-making. Patients who underwent emergency surgery, had no previous anesthetic exposure, had clinically significant level of preoperative anxiety, had no history of previous hospital admission, and had moderate-severe preoperative pain were found to have poor PPAC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10198025/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Safety in Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-023-00361-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Safety in Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-023-00361-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有效的沟通是提供最佳医疗服务的基本步骤,被认为是临床麻醉实践的重要组成部分。沟通不良会对患者的安全和预后产生不利影响。本研究的目的是从患者的角度调查埃塞俄比亚西北部贡达尔大学综合专科医院(UoGCSH)麻醉师沟通的质量。方法:在2021年4月1日至5月30日期间对423例外科患者进行描述性横断面研究。围手术期患者与麻醉师沟通(PPAC)采用15项沟通评估工具,5分Likert量表评分。数据收集是在术后患者从麻醉中最佳恢复时进行的。对收集的资料进行整理和描述性分析。结果:共纳入400例患者,有效率94.6%,其中226例为女性,有效率56.7%。中位(IQR)年龄为30(25 - 40)岁。361例(90.3%)患者报告PPAC良好,39例(9.8%)报告PPAC不良。PPAC评分中位数(IQR)为53.0(48.0 ~ 57.0),范围为27 ~ 69。在“用我能理解的语言交谈”项中,平均得分最高(4.3±0.7)。“检查以确保我理解了一切”的平均得分最低(1.9±0.9)。接受过急诊手术、无麻醉暴露史、术前有明显焦虑、无住院史、中重度术前疼痛的患者PPAC较差的比例分别为82.1%、79.5%、69.2%、64.1%和59.0%。结论:从患者角度看,我院PPAC工作良好。然而,在检查对所提供信息的理解程度、鼓励提出问题、披露下一步措施和参与决策方面应该有所改进。接受过急诊手术、既往无麻醉剂暴露、术前有临床显著焦虑水平、既往无住院史、术前有中度至重度疼痛的患者PPAC较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Quality of anesthetist communication with surgical patients in the perioperative setting: a survey at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Ethiopia.

Quality of anesthetist communication with surgical patients in the perioperative setting: a survey at an academic tertiary referral hospital in Ethiopia.

Background: Effective communication is a fundamental step in providing best medical care and recognized as vital component of clinical anesthesia practice. Poor communication adversely affects patients' safety and outcome. The objective of this study was to investigate the quality of anesthetist communication from patients' perspectives at University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital (UoGCSH), Northwest Ethiopia.

Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on 423 surgical patients from April 1, - May 30, 2021. Perioperative patient-anesthetist communication (PPAC) was measured by using 15-items Communication Assessment Tool graded by 5-points Likert scale. Data collection was executed during postoperative time as the patients were optimally recovered from anesthesia. The collected data were cleaned and descriptive analysis was performed.

Results: A total of 400 (94.6% response rate) patients included and 226 (56.7%) were female. The median (IQR) age was 30 (25 - 40) years. Three-hundreds and sixty-one (90.3%) patients had reported good PPAC and 39 (9.8%) reported poor PPAC. The median (IQR) of PPAC scores was 53.0 (48.0 - 57.0) and range from 27 to 69. Highest mean score was observed for the item "Talked in terms I could understand" (4.3 ± 0.7). Lowest mean scores were observed for the item "Checked to be sure I understood everything" (1.9 ± 0.9). Patients who had underwent emergency surgery, no previous anesthetic exposure, had significant preoperative anxiety, no history of previous hospital admission, and moderate-severe preoperative pain were found to have poor PPAC compared to their counterparts in the proportions of 82.1%, 79.5%, 69.2%, 64.1%, and 59.0% respectively.

Conclusions: There was good PPAC in our hospital from patients' perspective. However, there should be improvements in checking the degree of understanding of the delivered information, encouraging to question, disclosing next steps and involving in decision-making. Patients who underwent emergency surgery, had no previous anesthetic exposure, had clinically significant level of preoperative anxiety, had no history of previous hospital admission, and had moderate-severe preoperative pain were found to have poor PPAC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
8.10%
发文量
37
审稿时长
9 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