Search

Background: Positive person-centered attributes of inpatient rehabilitation need to be identified from the patient's perspective to be further developed and sustained. Purpose: To identify which attributes patients openly evoke as being great care experiences, using an open appreciative inquiry during the inpatient rehabilitation stay. Methods: Qualitative secondary analysis of appreciative patient comments during a bedside patient experience rounding facilitated by a neutral party was performed. Two independent analysts employed an inductive, summative form of content analysis. Results: Among 150 patients rounded, 122 provided categorizable appreciative accounts. Over two-thirds of the patients (67.2%) focused on "staff attributes" in their great-experience accounts. Those attributes were mostly interpersonal such as being "attentive & caring—beyond clinical duty" and being "encouraging (but not too hard) & reassuring". These interpersonal staff attributes were reported with words showing deep levels of personal significance or patient appreciation. Beyond staff attributes, the perceived quality of "patient care" (31.1%) and opportunities for "leisure and social activities" (9.0%) were also frequently evoked. Amenities like food or customer service were the least evoked, rarely so as an exclusive attribute (0.8% for each). Conclusions: The human(e) factor, especially the interpersonal qualities of staff, emerged as greatly appreciated from the patient experience perspective during inpatient rehabilitation. These experiences help identify which person-centered attributes of care might be further developed and sustained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health care organizations need to be responsive to the needs of increasingly diverse patient populations. We compared the contents of six publicly available approaches to organizational responsiveness to diversity. The central questions addressed in this paper are: what are the most consistently recommended issues for health care organizations to address in order to be responsive to the needs of diverse groups that differ from the majority population? How much consensus is there between various approaches?Methods: We purposively sampled six approaches from the US, Australia and Europe and used qualitative textual analysis to categorize the content of each approach into domains (conceptually distinct topic areas) and, within each domain, into dimensions (operationalizations). The resulting classification framework was used for comparative analysis of the content of the six approaches.Results: We identified seven domains that were represented in most or all approaches: organizational commitment, empirical evidence on inequalities and needs, a competent and diverse workforce, ensuring access for all users, ensuring responsiveness in care provision, fostering patient and community participation, and actively promoting responsiveness. Variations in the operationalization of these domains related to different scopes, contexts and types of diversity. For example, approaches that focus on ethnic diversity mostly provide recommendations to handle cultural and language differences; approaches that take an intersectional approach and broaden their target population to vulnerable groups in a more general sense also pay attention to factors such as socio-economic status and gender.Conclusions: Despite differences in labeling, there is a broad consensus about what health care organizations need to do in order to be responsive to patient diversity. This opens the way to full scale implementation of organizational responsiveness in healthcare and structured evaluation of its effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]