Search

Aim The aim of this study was to describe how patients with chronic back pain experience encounters with health care. Persons with chronic back pain are a stigmatized group often treated based on stereotypes, which may lead to misunderstandings and create frustrated patients and healthcare personnel. Few studies have examined the generic aspects of quality of care in this context. Design A descriptive design with a qualitative approach was used. Methods Nine individual interviews were conducted with chronic back pain patients after admission to an orthopaedic hospital ward. Data were analysed using content analysis. Results The patients’ experiences of healthcare encounters can be described by the theme “Struggling to be seen and understood as a person,” comprising the categories “Lack of access and trust to care,” “A desire to be taken care of and listened to” and “Own strength to handle healthcare situations.”

Background Clinical practice is a pivotal part of nursing education. It provides students with the opportunity to put the knowledge and skills they have acquired from lectures into practice with real patients, under the guidance of registered nurses. Clinical experience is also essential for shaping the nursing students’ identity as future professional nurses. There is a lack of knowledge and understanding of the ways in which students learn practical skills and apply knowledge within and across different contexts, i.e. how they apply clinical skills, learnt in the laboratory in university settings, in the clinical setting. The aim of this study was therefore to explore how nursing students describe, and use, their prior experiences related to practical skills during their clinical practice. Methods An ethnographic case study design was used. Fieldwork included participant observations (82 h), informal conversations, and interviews (n = 7) that were conducted during nursing students’ (n = 17) clinical practice at an emergency department at a university hospital in Sweden. Results The overarching theme identified was “Learning about professional identities with respect to situated power”. This encompasses tensions in students’ learning when they are socialized into practical skills in the nursing profession. This overarching theme consists of three sub-themes: “Embodied knowledge”, “Divergent ways of assessing and evaluating knowledge” and “Balancing approaches”. Conclusions Nursing students do not automatically possess the ability to transfer knowledge from one setting to another; rather, their development is shaped by their experiences and interactions with others when they meet real patients. The study revealed different ways in which students navigated tensions related to power differentials. Reflecting on actions is a prerequisite for developing and learning practical skills and professional identities. This highlights the importance of both educators’ and the preceptors’ roles for socializing students in this process.

Rationale and aims: The importance of evaluating postoperative recovery with consideration to the patient’s perspective has been emphasized. The aim of this study was to demonstrate how the recovery-specific Postoperative Recovery Profile (PRP) questionnaire can be used to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after hip- and knee replacement in the enhancement of clinical quality and the person-centeredness of clinical services.Method: Patients undergoing primary total knee- and hip replacement were eligible for this longitudinal follow-up study. The participants completed the PRP questionnaire on repeated occasions. In this paper, data from Day 3 and Month 1 after discharge were used. The change in recovery, between the two measurement occasions, on item-, dimensional- and global levels, both for each patient and for the group, were evaluated.Results: A total number of 75 patients were included. One month after discharge the median PRP score was 13 (partly recovered) out of 19. Recovery changes towards lower levels of problems/difficulties were shown in both item-, dimensional- and global levels of recovery month 1 after discharge, as compared with Day 3. The group of patients was homogenous in change.Conclusions: We demonstrated that the PRP questionnaire can be used to evaluate postoperative recovery after hip- and knee replacement surgery on item-, dimensional- and global levels. Data from each recovery level can be useful for quality development and in informing increases in the person-centeredness of clinical services. The global population scores can be used to evaluate treatment effect on a group of patients. It can also be used to define endpoints in follow-up studies.

This thesis aims to present a multi-dimensional instrument for self-assessment of progress in postoperative recovery. The author employs different research paradigms and methodologies to achieve this aim. Walker and Avant’s approach to concept analysis was used to examine the basic elements of postoperative recovery (Study I). The analysis identified different recovery dimensions and developed a theoretical definition showing postoperative recovery to be an energy-requiring process of returning to normality and wholeness, defined by comparative standards. Fourteen patients and 28 staff members participated in individual and focus group interviews aimed at describing patient and staff experiences of patient recovery (Study II). The essence of the postoperative recovery process was described as a desire to decrease unpleasant physical symptoms, reach a level of emotional wellbeing, regain functions, and re-establish activities. In Study III, 5 dimensions and 19 items were identified as a part of the operationalization process of the concept postoperative recovery. Fifteen staff members and 16 patients participated in the evaluation of content validity. On average, 85% of the participants considered the items as essential to the recovery process. In a test run of the questionnaire, 14 of 15 patients considered the questionnaire to be easy to understand and easy to complete. Twenty-five patients participated in the evaluation of intra-patient reliability. Percentage agreement (PA), systematic disagreement (RP, RC), and individual variability (RV) between the two assessments were calculated. PA measures ranged from 72% to 100%. The observed disagreement could be explained mainly by systematic disagreement. In total, 158 patients participated in the evaluation of construct validity, the ability to discriminate between groups, and the investigation of important item variables (Study IV). A rank-based statistical method for evaluation of paired, ordered categorical data from rating scales was used to evaluate consistency between the assessments of the Postoperative Recovery Profile (PRP) questionnaire and a global recovery scale. The number of months needed by participants to be regarded as fully recovered was studied by means of recovery profiles displayed by the cumulative proportion of recovered participants over time. A ranking list based on the participant’s appraisal of the five most important item variables in the PRP questionnaire was compiled to illustrate the rank ordering of the items. In comparing the assessments from the PRP questionnaire and the global recovery scale, 7.6% of all possible pairs were disordered. Twelve months after discharge 73% in the orthopaedic group were regarded as fully recovered, compared to 51% of the participants in the abdominal group (95% CI: 6% to 40%). The pain variable appeared among the top five most important items on eight measurement occasions, of eight possible, in both study groups. In conclusion, the PRP questionnaire was developed and support was given for validity and reliability. The questionnaire enables one to evaluate progress in postoperative recovery.