Healing by Leaps and Gowns: A Novel Patient Gowning System to the Rescue.

Patient attire is paramount to a patient's dignity and hospital experience. The traditional hospital gown is dehumanizing, anachronistic, and was designed for providers' convenience. In this descriptive, prospective follow-up to our previous pilot study, we evaluated male and female medical and surgical patients and provider preference and experience with a novel patient gowning system, the Patient Access Linen System (PALS). This study was conducted in 2 hospitals within our health system. Our objective was to assess patient and provider satisfaction, experience, and preference using the PALS. A multiple-choice, free response survey was administered to patients and providers following the use of an item. A total of 315 patients and 249 staff in 2 hospitals completed surveys regarding their experience using or providing care to patients using the PALS. Patients and providers had consistently positive experiences with the PALS, including questions about comfort and function. The data demonstrate a clear preference for the PALS compared to the traditional hospital gown and give additional supporting evidence that the comfort of hospital clothing is of paramount importance to patients.

Compassionate Coverage: A Patient Access Linen System.

BACKGROUND: Patient attire is paramount to patient's dignity and overall experience. In this pilot study and in concert with a designer and clinician, we developed, patented, tested, and evaluated patient and provider preference and experience with a novel patient gowning system. Our objective was to survey obstetrics and gynecology hospital inpatients' and providers' experience with a novel hospital attire system; the patient access linen system (PALS). METHODS: Patients were provided a PALS item at the beginning of a provider's shift or at the start of an outpatient visit. Following their use of the PALS item, the patients and providers completed a separate multiple-choice and free-response question survey. Surveys were completed by patients each time a PALS item was returned to the provider for processing. RESULTS: Patients and providers had a significantly positive experience with the PALS. The majority of patients had positive responses to each question about comfort and function of the PALS system, showed consistent preference for the PALS in comparison to a traditional hospital gown and demonstrated that comfort of hospital clothing is a priority for patients. The majority of providers found PALS easy to use when compared to the traditional gown with regard to clinical examinations. CONCLUSION: Patients in our pilot prioritized hospital attire as a key element in their overall hospital experience, and both patients and providers preferred the PALS system over the traditional hospital gown. Further study is needed on patient attire and evaluation of the potential clinical impact of the PALS.

Benefits of a comprehensive, publicly funded prenatal care and obstetrics program.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the effectiveness of a comprehensive, multispecialty, interdisciplinary team approach to prenatal and obstetric care for previously medically underserved patients. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective chart review analysis was performed on a total of 1,800 charts pertaining to 600 patients divided evenly between a publicly funded, comprehensive prenatal care program and that same institution's private faculty practice. For each of the 600 patients data were extracted from prenatal, intrapartum and postpartum records. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, the chi2 test and the Mann-Whitney test. In addition, for certain parameters, the data from the publicly funded program were compared to national data. RESULTS: In the publicly funded group, more patients initiated prenatal care at a later date (p < 0.0001), had a significantly higher rate of illegal substance use (p < 0.0007), utilized home care services more frequently (p < 0.0001) and averaged a somewhat longer hospital stay for mother and neonate (p < 0.0019, p < 0.0001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups or between the publicly funded group and the national averages for most antepartum, intrapartum and postpartum complications or for maternal or fetal morbidity or mortality. The publicly funded group averaged a higher rate of breast-feeding. CONCLUSION: Despite belonging to a higher risk population, there were no statistically significant differences in maternal or neonatal outcomes between the publicly funded group and the private faculty practice group or between the publicly funded group and national data. This suggests that a comprehensive, multispecialty, interdisciplinary team approach to prenatal and obstetric care is an effective program to provide to patients who have previously been medically underserved.