Challenging the holy grail of hospital accreditation: A cross sectional study of inpatient satisfaction in the field of cardiology

Extent: 7p.Background: Subjective parameters such as quality of life or patient satisfaction gain importance as outcome parameters and benchmarks in health care. In many countries hospitals are now undergoing accreditation as mandatory or voluntary measures. It is believed but unproven that accreditations positively influence quality of care and patient satisfaction. The present study aims to assess in a defined specialty (cardiology) the relationship between patient satisfaction (as measured by the recommendation rate) and accreditation status. Methods: Consecutive patients discharged from 25 cardiology units received a validated patient satisfaction questionnaire. Data from 3,037 patients (response rate > 55%) became available for analysis. Recommendation rate was used as primary endpoint. Different control variables such as staffing level were considered. Results: The 15 accredited units did not differ significantly from the 10 non-accredited units regarding main hospital (i.e. staffing levels, no. of beds) and patient (age, gender) characteristics. The primary endpoint "recommendation rate of a given hospital" for accredited hospitals (65.6%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 63.4 - 67.8%) and hospitals without accreditation (65.8%, 95% CI 63.1 - 68.5%) was not significantly different. Conclusion: Our results support the notion that - at least in the field of cardiology - successful accreditation is not linked with measurable better quality of care as perceived by the patient and reflected by the recommendation rate of a given institution. Hospital accreditation may represent a step towards quality management, but does not seem to improve overall patient satisfaction.Cornelia Sack, Peter Lütkes, Wolfram Günther, Raimund Erbel, Karl-Heinz Jöckel and Gerald J Holtman

Evaluating Forecasting Methods

Ideally, forecasting methods should be evaluated in the situations for which they will be used. Underlying the evaluation procedure is the need to test methods against reasonable alternatives. Evaluation consists of four steps: testing assumptions, testing data and methods, replicating outputs, and assessing outputs. Most principles for testing forecasting methods are based on commonly accepted methodological procedures, such as to prespecify criteria or to obtain a large sample of forecast errors. However, forecasters often violate such principles, even in academic studies. Some principles might be surprising, such as do not use R-square, do not use Mean Square Error, and do not use the within-sample fit of the model to select the most accurate time-series model. A checklist of 32 principles is provided to help in systematically evaluating forecasting methods

Improving value-awareness through storytelling in user experience design

\u3cp\u3eValue has been one of the topics in HCI and design field with various definitions from perspectives. Values are in essence related to experience because they are personal perception and assessment on objects, products, or services. Hence, it makes sense to involve values in user experience design and make values as one of the design goals. However, values are usually easy to take for granted but hard to work with in design practices. This paper proposed a storytelling-value approach with the aim to improve awareness of values in user experience design. It was based on storytelling methodology that emphasizes scenario-based envisioning and the results from a focus group which involved user experience designer in to discuss values in UX design. A co-design workshop was conducted as a support for improvement of the approach. It is promising to optimize this storytelling-value approach in the future since most of the participants showed their positive attitudes not only to the necessity in methods development but also to the acceptance of this approach.\u3c/p\u3