ABSTRACT
Objetivos: Medir la satisfacción relacionada con aspectos técnicos y comunicativos de los usuarios de consulta de Enfermería en Atención Primaria. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo realizado con pacientes usuarios del Servicio de Enfermería de los Centros de Salud (CCSS) de Córdoba y provincia. Los pacientes fueron entrevistados utilizando dos tipos de preguntas, cerradas y abiertas que recogían sus opiniones y satisfacción en dominios comunicacionales como la relación enfermera-paciente, la información recibida o el tiempo empleado; así como los procedimientos utilizados. Análisis descriptivo e inferencial (Test de Ji-cuadrado; p<0,05). Las preguntas abiertas se agruparon en categorías en un proceso de análisis cualitativo que implicó a dos investigadoras independientes. Resultados: Participaron 335 pacientes. Se obtuvo un 76,5% de satisfacción en las respuestas cerradas respecto a los procedimientos utilizados en la sala de curas, sin embargo el 26,1% de los pacientes planteo alguna sugerencia o propuesta de cambio en las respuestas abiertas. Al 89,1% de satisfacción en información recibida en respuestas cerradas, el 16,1% hizo sugerencias de cambio en las respuestas abiertas. En cuanto a la relación enfermera paciente, los resultados fueron: un 94,2% mostraba satisfacción frente a un 7,5% que planteó sugerencias en preguntas abiertas; en referencia al tiempo empleado la satisfacción oscilo del 88,5% al 16,8%. Conclusiones: La mayoría de los pacientes que consultaron con Enfermería en los Centros de Salud mostraron satisfacción con la atención recibida, si bien les gustaría participar más en la toma de decisiones(AU)
Objectives: To measure the satisfaction related to communication and technical aspects of the users of nursing consultation in Primary Care. Material and methods: Descriptive study conducted with patients using the nursing service Health Centers. After consultation with the staff, the patients were interviewed using two types of open and closed questions that assessed their views and satisfaction with some communication domains. Frequency distributions and exploring the differences between the two measures were explored using descriptive and inferential analysis (chi-square test, P <0.05). Open-ended questions were grouped into categories in a process of qualitative analysis involving two researchers independently. Results: 335 patients participated, 76.5% was obtained of the closed-ended satisfaction regarding the procedures used in the treatment room, and however, 26.1% of patients wont have any suggestions or proposed changes in the open responses. To 89.1% of satisfaction with information received in closed responses, 16.1% made suggestions for change in the open answers. As the nurse patient, the results were 94.2% showed satisfaction, compared to 7.5% which raised suggestions on open questions, and time used the ratio was 88.5% vs. 16.8%. Discussion and Conclusions: Most patients who consult with nurses in health centers showed satisfaction with care received, however they would like to participate more in decision making(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Patient Satisfaction , Quality Indicators, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Quality Indicators, Health Care/trends , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Quality Indicators, Health Care/organization & administration , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , Office Nursing/trends , Primary Health Care/methods , Primary Health Care/trends , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
Objetivo: Conocer qué opinan los médicos de familia de nuestro entorno sobre distintos aspectos relacionados con la implicación de los pacientes en la toma de decisiones clínicas en atención primaria. Diseño: Estudio cualitativo mediante grupos focales. Emplazamiento: Atención primaria. Participantes: Médicos de familia expertos y no expertos en comunicación clínica. Métodos: Se formaron 3 grupos focales de 6-8 profesionales que participaron en 2 reuniones. Las conversaciones fueron registradas y transcritas literalmente. El discurso se analizó sobre categorías basadas en la bibliografía y otras emergentes del texto, codificando la información y realizando una interpretación inductiva. Resultados: Los médicos de familia refieren mayoritariamente que implicarían al paciente en las decisiones proponiéndole un plan adaptado al conocimiento que de él y su problema tienen y posteriormente comprobando su aprobación o rechazo. Sin embargo, algunos profesionales reflexionan si esto podría ser calificado como implicación del paciente, cuestionando el protagonismo real que adoptarían ambos actores a la hora de decidir. Conclusiones: La explicación de los médicos de familia sobre cómo involucrarían al paciente en las decisiones se enfrenta a las teorías más divulgadas sobre el tema e, igualmente, se opone a la visión de los pacientes, que desearían ser involucrados más activamente. Observando algunas reflexiones disonantes sobre la pertinencia de considerar el proceso así expuesto como verdadera implicación del paciente, se hace necesario describir para nuestro medio un modelo teórico realista que permita desarrollar posteriormente estrategias para mejorar la actitud y formación de los profesionales hacia la implicación del paciente en las decisiones clínicas(AU)
Objective: To determine what family doctors think about various aspects of patient involvement in clinical decision making in Primary Care. Design: Qualitative study using focus groups. Location: Primary Care. Participants: Family physicians with and without expertise in clinical communication. Methods: Three focus groups were developed, involving 6-8 professionals per group, and took part in two meetings. The conversations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The discussion was analysed using literature-based categories and other emerging from the text, encoding the information and making an inductive interpretation. Results: Family physicians refer mainly to involving the patient in decisions by proposing a plan tailored to the knowledge of patient problems and then verifying their approval or rejection. However, some professionals ponder whether this could be classified as patient involvement, questioning the real role that both players would take at the time of deciding. Conclusions: The explanation of how family physicians would involve the patient in decisions clashes with the most widespread theories on the subject and, also opposes the view of patients who would like to be involved more actively. Taking into account discordant reflections on the relevance of considering this process as real patient involvement, it is necessary to describe a realistic theoretical model that allows further development of strategies to improve the attitude and training of professionals to patient involvement in clinical decisions(AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Decision Making/physiology , Focus Groups/methods , Focus Groups , Patient Participation/methods , Patient Participation/trends , Patient Participation , Qualitative Research , Family Practice/methods , Family Practice/statistics & numerical data , Policy Making , Focus Groups/standards , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Family Practice/organization & administration , Family Practice/standards , Family Practice/trendsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine what family doctors think about various aspects of patient involvement in clinical decision making in Primary Care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups. LOCATION: Primary Care. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians with and without expertise in clinical communication. METHODS: Three focus groups were developed, involving 6-8 professionals per group, and took part in two meetings. The conversations were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The discussion was analysed using literature-based categories and other emerging from the text, encoding the information and making an inductive interpretation. RESULTS: Family physicians refer mainly to involving the patient in decisions by proposing a plan tailored to the knowledge of patient problems and then verifying their approval or rejection. However, some professionals ponder whether this could be classified as patient involvement, questioning the real role that both players would take at the time of deciding. CONCLUSIONS: The explanation of how family physicians would involve the patient in decisions clashes with the most widespread theories on the subject and, also opposes the view of patients who would like to be involved more actively. Taking into account discordant reflections on the relevance of considering this process as real patient involvement, it is necessary to describe a realistic theoretical model that allows further development of strategies to improve the attitude and training of professionals to patient involvement in clinical decisions.
