Hospital environment, nurse-physician relationships and quality of care: questionnaire survey

shen h.‐c., chiu h.‐t., lee p.‐h., hu y.‐c. & chang w.‐y. (2011) Hospital environment, nurse–physician relationships, and quality of care: questionnaire survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(2), 349–358. Aim.  This paper is a report of a study conducted to (a) to compare hospitalized patients’...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of advanced nursing 2011-02, Vol.67 (2), p.349-358
Hauptverfasser: Shen, Hsi-Che, Chiu, Hsiao-Ting, Lee, Pi-Hsia, Hu, Yi-Chun, Chang, Wen-Yin
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:shen h.‐c., chiu h.‐t., lee p.‐h., hu y.‐c. & chang w.‐y. (2011) Hospital environment, nurse–physician relationships, and quality of care: questionnaire survey. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(2), 349–358. Aim.  This paper is a report of a study conducted to (a) to compare hospitalized patients’ and nurses’ perceptions of the hospital environment, nurse–physician relationships and quality of care; (b) to determine which factors best predict the quality of care from hospitalized patients' and nurses' perspectives; and (c) to assess the relationships among all variables. Background.  Quality of care is a function of many factors and includes elements of the hospital environment and nurse–physician relationships. However, comparisons between patients’ and nurses’ perceptions are relatively limited. Methods.  This was a cross‐sectional study, and 575 patients and 220 nurses across 13 units completed questionnaires. Data were collected in 2009 and analysed using descriptive statistics, independent t‐tests, stepwise regression and path analysis. Results.  Overall, patients’ mean scores were statistically significantly higher than those of nurses on perception of hospital environment (3·05 vs. 2·65 points), nurse–physician relationships (7·88 vs. 6·53 points) and quality of care (7·91 vs. 6·63 points) (P 
ISSN:0309-2402
1365-2648
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05502.x