Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(2): e1921130, 2020 02 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32049299

RESUMO

Importance: As online reviews of health care become increasingly integral to patient decision-making, understanding their content can help health care practices identify and address patient concerns. Objective: To identify the most frequently cited complaints in negative (ie, 1-star) online reviews of hospice agencies across the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study conducted a thematic analysis of online reviews of US hospice agencies posted between August 2011 and July 2019. The sample was selected from a Hospice Analytics database. For each state, 1 for-profit (n = 50) and 1 nonprofit (n = 50) hospice agency were randomly selected from the category of extra-large hospice agencies (ie, serving >200 patients/d) in the database. Data analysis was conducted from January 2019 to April 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reviews were analyzed to identify the most prevalent concerns expressed by reviewers. Results: Of 100 hospice agencies in the study sample, 67 (67.0%) had 1-star reviews; 33 (49.3%) were for-profit facilities and 34 (50.7%) were nonprofit facilities. Of 137 unique reviews, 68 (49.6%) were for for-profit facilities and 69 (50.4%) were for nonprofit facilities. A total of 5 themes emerged during the coding and analytic process, as follows: discordant expectations, suboptimal communication, quality of care, misperceptions about the role of hospice, and the meaning of a good death. The first 3 themes were categorized as actionable criticisms, which are variables hospice organizations could change. The remaining 2 themes were categorized as unactionable criticisms, which are factors that would require larger systematic changes to address. For both for-profit and nonprofit hospice agencies, quality of care was the most frequently commented-on theme (117 of 212 comments [55.2%]). For-profit hospice agencies received more communication-related comments overall (34 of 130 [26.2%] vs 9 of 82 [11.0%]), while nonprofit hospice agencies received more comments about the role of hospice (23 of 33 [69.7%] vs 19 of 31 [61.3%]) and the quality of death (16 [48.5%] vs 12 [38.7%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Regarding actionable criticisms, hospice agencies could examine their current practices, given that reviewers described these issues as negatively affecting the already difficult experience of losing a loved one. The findings indicated that patients and their families, friends, and caregivers require in-depth instruction and guidance on what they can expect from hospice staff, hospice services, and the dying process. Several criticisms identified in this study may be mitigated through operationalized, explicit conversations about these topics during hospice enrollment.


Assuntos
Hospitais para Doentes Terminais , Internet , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Hospitais para Doentes Terminais/classificação , Hospitais para Doentes Terminais/normas , Hospitais para Doentes Terminais/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Organizações sem Fins Lucrativos , Satisfação do Paciente , Setor Privado , Opinião Pública , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/classificação , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos
2.
Am J Hosp Palliat Care ; 37(9): 721-727, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31888342

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hospice is underutilized, due to both lack of initiation from patients and late referral from clinicians. Prior research has suggested the reasons for underuse are multifactorial, including clinician and patient lack of understanding, misperceptions about the nature of hospice care, and poor communication during end-of-life discussions about hospice care. Little is known about the decisional needs of patients and families engaging in hospice decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To understand the decisional needs of patients and families making decisions about hospice care. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with family caregivers and hospice providers and one-on-one interviews with patients considering or enrolled in hospice care. We identified participants through purposeful and snowball sampling methods. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Four patients, 32 family caregivers, and 27 hospice providers participated in the study. Four main themes around decisional needs emerged from the interviews and focus groups: (1) What is hospice care?; (2) Why might hospice care be helpful?; (3) Where is hospice care provided?; and (4) How is hospice care paid for? DISCUSSION: Hospice may not be the right treatment choice for all with terminal illness. Our study highlights where patients' and families' understanding could be enhanced to assure that they have the opportunity to benefit from hospice, if they so desire.


Assuntos
Cuidadores/psicologia , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Cuidados Paliativos na Terminalidade da Vida/organização & administração , Cuidados Paliativos na Terminalidade da Vida/psicologia , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Comunicação , Tomada de Decisões , Emoções , Feminino , Cuidados Paliativos na Terminalidade da Vida/economia , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Apoio Social , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...