Patient satisfaction with divided anesthesia care

Background Up to now, no prospective cohort study using a validated questionnaire has assessed patients’ expectation and perception of divided anesthesia care and its influence on patient satisfaction. Objective We assessed patient satisfaction with divided anesthesia care in a district general hosp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Die Anaesthesiologie 2023-02, Vol.72 (2), p.97-105
Hauptverfasser: Koster, Kira-Lee, Björklund, Carolin, Fenner, Sebastian, Flierler, Wolfgang Johann, Laupheimer, Michael, Burri, Katharina, Nübling, Matthias, Heidegger, Thomas
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Up to now, no prospective cohort study using a validated questionnaire has assessed patients’ expectation and perception of divided anesthesia care and its influence on patient satisfaction. Objective We assessed patient satisfaction with divided anesthesia care in a district general hospital in Switzerland. We hypothesized that patient expectations, combined with their perceptions of the (un)importance of continuous anesthesia care would influence patient satisfaction. Material and methods A total of 484 eligible in-patients receiving anesthesia from October 2019 to February 2020 were included and received preoperative information about divided care via a brochure and face-to-face. The primary outcome was the assessment of patient satisfaction with divided anesthesia care using a validated questionnaire. In group 1 continuity of care was considered important but not performed. In group 2 continuity was ensured. In group 3 continuity was regarded as not important and was not performed. In group 4 patients could not remember or did not answer. A psychometrically developed validated questionnaire was sent to patients at home after discharge. Results A total of 484 completed questionnaires (response rate 81%) were analyzed. In group 1 ( n  = 110) the mean total dissatisfaction score was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI] 21.8–28.1), in group 2 ( n  = 61) 6.8% (95% CI 4.8–8.7), in group 3 ( n  = 223) 12.1% (95% CI 10.7–13.4), and in group 4 ( n  = 90) 15% (95% CI 11–18); ANOVA: p  
ISSN:2731-6858
2731-6866
DOI:10.1007/s00101-022-01192-x