Patients' satisfaction and opinions of their experiences during admission in a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan – a cross sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is often felt that developing countries need to improve their quality of healthcare provision. This study hopes to generate data that can help managers and doctors to improve the standard of care they provide in line with the wishes of the patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>It was a cross sectional study carried out at a major tertiary care hospital of Karachi. Patients between the ages of 18 and 80 years admitted to the hospital for at least one day were included. Patients in the maternity, psychiatry and chemotherapy wards and those in the ICU/CCU were excluded. A pretested, peer reviewed translation of a validated patient satisfaction scale developed by the Picker Institute of Europe was administered.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 173 patients (response rate: 78.6 %) filled the questionnaire. Patient satisfaction was at levels comparable to European surveys for most aspects of hospital care. However, nearly half the patients (48%) felt they had to wait too long to get a bed in the hospital after presenting to the ER. 68.6% of the patients said that they were never asked for views on the quality of care provided. 20% of the patients did not find anyone in the staff to talk to about their worries and fears while 27.6% felt that they were given emotional support to only some extent. Up to one third of the patients said they were not provided enough information regarding their operative procedures beforehand.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although several components of patient care equal the quality levels of the west, many sections require considerable improvement in order to improve health care provision. The healthcare team needs to get more involved with the patients, providing them greater support and keeping them informed and involved with their medical treatment. Efforts should be made to get regular feedback from the patients.</p

Clinicians, Educators, and Investigators in General Internal Medicine: Bridging the Gaps

Financial and time pressures, disparate promotional pathways, geographic separation, and difficulty acknowledging personal fallibility can contribute to polarization of clinician-educators and investigators in general internal medicine (GIM). As a consequence, clinician-educators and investigators may fail to use their joint expertise, may encounter friction in their relationships, and may present a troubled image to trainees considering careers in GIM. We suggest specific strategies that clinician-educators, investigators, administrative leaders, and medical schools might use to foster collaboration

Using Stories to Disseminate Research: The Attributes of Representative Stories

When researchers communicate their findings to patients, clinicians, policy-makers, or media, they may find it helpful to supplement quantitative data with stories about individuals who represent themes in their research. Whether such stories are gathered during the research itself or identified from other sources, researchers must develop strategies for assessing their representativeness. This paper proposes 5 attributes of representative stories: (1) expression of important themes in the research, (2) explicit location in the “distribution” of stories that exemplify the theme, (3) verifiability, (4) acknowledgment of uncertainty, and (5) compelling narration. This paper summarizes research on substance abuse among physicians, and uses these 5 attributes to assess the representativeness of a published case report and a fictional short story about addicted physicians. While neither story is fully representative of the research, the process of evaluating these stories illustrates an approach to identifying representative stories for use in disseminating research