Limits...
Patient satisfaction after implementation of person-centred handover in oncological inpatient care – A cross-sectional study

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Effective nurse shift-to-shift handover is a prerequisite for high-quality inpatient care. Combining person-centeredness with the need for improved handover rituals, we introduced and evaluated person-centered handover (PCH) in an oncological inpatient setting. PCH is the shift-to-shift nursing report performed together with the patient according to a set structure focused on patient participation, relevant clinical information, and patient safety. Non-verbal handover, standard at the department, is conducted via the electronic health record, in absence of the patient, and without a set structure. The aim of the study was to compare person-centered handover with non-verbal handover in an oncological inpatient setting with regard to patient satisfaction. A cross-sectional design featuring two points of measurement at one intervention ward and two control wards was applied. The EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire was used for measuring patient satisfaction. Baseline measurements were taken during the spring of 2014, when all three wards used a non-verbal handover model, and included responses from 116 patients. Follow-up measurements (comparing PCH and non-verbal handover) involved 209 patients and were on-going from September 2014 to May 2015. After the introduction of PCH, one change in patient satisfaction was detected regarding the subscale measuring exchange of information between caregivers. Patients from the intervention ward scored statistically higher after the implementation of PCH when compared to the control wards (p = .0058). The difference remained after a multivariate regression analysis controlling for clinical variables. In conclusion, PCH is feasible in oncological inpatient care but does not seem to affect patient satisfaction.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

(A) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at baseline adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis. (B) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at T1 adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5383334&req=5

pone.0175397.g003: (A) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at baseline adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis. (B) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at T1 adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis.

Mentions: In a multivariate regression analysis controlling for age, gender, educational level and treatment intention, no differences between the intervention ward and the control wards were found at T0 (Fig 3A). At T1, the same comparison between the groups demonstrated that the difference between the intervention ward and the compiled control wards remained regarding the scale EXE when controlling for clinical variables (Fig 3B).


Patient satisfaction after implementation of person-centred handover in oncological inpatient care – A cross-sectional study
(A) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at baseline adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis. (B) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at T1 adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5383334&req=5

pone.0175397.g003: (A) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at baseline adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis. (B) shows the EORTC INPATSAT-32 scores at T1 adjusted for age, sex, education and treatment intention in a multivariate regression analysis.
Mentions: In a multivariate regression analysis controlling for age, gender, educational level and treatment intention, no differences between the intervention ward and the control wards were found at T0 (Fig 3A). At T1, the same comparison between the groups demonstrated that the difference between the intervention ward and the compiled control wards remained regarding the scale EXE when controlling for clinical variables (Fig 3B).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Effective nurse shift-to-shift handover is a prerequisite for high-quality inpatient care. Combining person-centeredness with the need for improved handover rituals, we introduced and evaluated person-centered handover (PCH) in an oncological inpatient setting. PCH is the shift-to-shift nursing report performed together with the patient according to a set structure focused on patient participation, relevant clinical information, and patient safety. Non-verbal handover, standard at the department, is conducted via the electronic health record, in absence of the patient, and without a set structure. The aim of the study was to compare person-centered handover with non-verbal handover in an oncological inpatient setting with regard to patient satisfaction. A cross-sectional design featuring two points of measurement at one intervention ward and two control wards was applied. The EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire was used for measuring patient satisfaction. Baseline measurements were taken during the spring of 2014, when all three wards used a non-verbal handover model, and included responses from 116 patients. Follow-up measurements (comparing PCH and non-verbal handover) involved 209 patients and were on-going from September 2014 to May 2015. After the introduction of PCH, one change in patient satisfaction was detected regarding the subscale measuring exchange of information between caregivers. Patients from the intervention ward scored statistically higher after the implementation of PCH when compared to the control wards (p = .0058). The difference remained after a multivariate regression analysis controlling for clinical variables. In conclusion, PCH is feasible in oncological inpatient care but does not seem to affect patient satisfaction.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus