4.2 Article

Patient, carer and staff experience of a hospital-based stroke service

期刊

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzl073

关键词

stroke; health care quality assessment; quality of health care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Here, the aim is to study the experiences of patients, carers and staff throughout a hospital stroke care pathway. Design. Focus groups of patients, carers and staff followed a semi-structured format to elucidate experiences. The groups were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis. Analyses were verified by researchers and participants. Results. Patients and caters produced four overlapping themes: 'information', 'staff attitudes', 'availability of care/treatment' and 'considering the whole person in context'. The caters' group produced two additional themes: 'accommodation of patients' individual needs' and 'burden of care'. Their experiences were complex and multi-faceted; positive views of the whole service co-existed with negative views of some aspects. The staff groups produced six themes: 'specialist service', 'split service', 'availability of care', 'consistency of care', 'staff morale' and 'wish for change'. Positive views of the specialist service were tempered by problems with physical and professional separation, staff shortages and 'hierarchical practice' that reduced collective decision-making. Conclusion. Some of the patients' and carers' perspectives have not been previously reported in the stroke literature, including a desire for individualized treatment, the consideration of wider, non-physical needs and the caters' sense of burden. In addition, the study revealed how staff, caters and patients viewed each other and the service and demonstrated the concordance of their perceptions. However, staff showed little insight into the users' need for information and negative experiences of care. In contrast with previous research, lack of emotional care, poor continuity of care and lack of staff knowledge and skills were not identified as problems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据