Geriatric patients' expectations of their physicians: findings from a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Geriatric health is a neglected and under-explored area internationally and in Pakistan. We aimed to ascertain the expectations of the geriatric patients from their physicians and the factors associated with patient satisfaction in this particular age bracket.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey was carried out at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Data collection was carried out via face-to-face interviews based on structured, pre-tested questionnaires. All consenting individuals aged 65 years or above were recruited into the study. Convenience sampling was used to draw the sample. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 16. Geriatric patient's expectations from physicians were elicited using a set of 11 questions that were graded on a scale of 1-3 where 1 = not important, 2 = important, 3 = very important.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three hundred and eighty geriatric patients were interviewed. The response rate of this study was 89.8%. The mean age of the respondents was 73.4 ± 6.8 years. Two hundred and forty eight respondents (65.3%) were female. Diabetes mellitus (53.7%), hypertension (59.5%), arthritis (40.5%) and renal disease (32.1%) were common ailments among geriatric patients. More than 50% of the patients were visiting their physicians once every two to three months. Discussing treatment options and letting patients make the final decision (79.2%), prescribing minimum possible medications (84.5%), physician's holistic knowledge about the spectrum of care issues for geriatric patients (79.2%), being given a realistic but optimistic picture of future health by physicians (85.5%) were ranked as very important expectations by patients from their physicians. Cumulative household income (p = 0.005), most important health complaint (p = 0.01) and frequency of experiencing health complaint (p < 0.001) emerged as independent predictors of the satisfaction of geriatric patients from care provided by physicians.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have documented the expectations of the geriatric patients from their physicians in a developing country. Physicians belonging to all disciplines should keep these expectations in mind during clinical encounters with geriatric patients.</p

Profiling quality of care: Is there a role for peer review?

BACKGROUND: We sought to develop a more reliable structured implicit chart review instrument for use in assessing the quality of care for chronic disease and to examine if ratings are more reliable for conditions in which the evidence base for practice is more developed. METHODS: We conducted a reliability study in a cohort with patient records including both outpatient and inpatient care as the objects of measurement. We developed a structured implicit review instrument to assess the quality of care over one year of treatment. 12 reviewers conducted a total of 496 reviews of 70 patient records selected from 26 VA clinical sites in two regions of the country. Each patient had between one and four conditions specified as having a highly developed evidence base (diabetes and hypertension) or a less developed evidence base (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or a collection of acute conditions). Multilevel analysis that accounts for the nested and cross-classified structure of the data was used to estimate the signal and noise components of the measurement of quality and the reliability of implicit review. RESULTS: For COPD and a collection of acute conditions the reliability of a single physician review was quite low (intra-class correlation = 0.16–0.26) but comparable to most previously published estimates for the use of this method in inpatient settings. However, for diabetes and hypertension the reliability is significantly higher at 0.46. The higher reliability is a result of the reviewers collectively being able to distinguish more differences in the quality of care between patients (p < 0.007) and not due to less random noise or individual reviewer bias in the measurement. For these conditions the level of true quality (i.e. the rating of quality of care that would result from the full population of physician reviewers reviewing a record) varied from poor to good across patients. CONCLUSIONS: For conditions with a well-developed quality of care evidence base, such as hypertension and diabetes, a single structured implicit review to assess the quality of care over a period of time is moderately reliable. This method could be a reasonable complement or alternative to explicit indicator approaches for assessing and comparing quality of care. Structured implicit review, like explicit quality measures, must be used more cautiously for illnesses for which the evidence base is less well developed, such as COPD and acute, short-course illnesses

Is more better? An analysis of hospital outcomes and efficiency with a DEA model of output congestion

Hospital efficiency, DEA, Patient outcomes,