Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27472441›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing studies2016

Quantity and quality of interaction between staff and older patients in UK hospital wards: A descriptive study.

Hannah Ruth Barker, Peter Griffiths, Ines Mesa-Eguiagaray, Ruth Pickering, Lisa Gould, Jackie Bridges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing studies, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Factors Influencing Quality of Care Service of Caregivers for Preschoolers.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Hannah Ruth BarkerFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: h.r.barker@soton.ac.uk.
Peter GriffithsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Peter.griffiths@soton.ac.uk.
Ines Mesa-EguiagarayFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: I.Mesa-Eguiagaray@soton.ac.uk.
Ruth PickeringFaculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: rmp@soton.ac.uk.
Lisa GouldFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: l.j.gould@soton.ac.uk.
Jackie BridgesFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, United Kingdom. Electronic address: Jackie.bridges@soton.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/07/48
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe quality of staff-patient interactions underpins the overall quality of patient experience and can affect other important outcomes. However no studies have been identified that comprehensively explore both the quality and quantity of interactions in general hospital settings. AIMS &

objectivesTo quantify and characterise the quality of staff-patient interactions and to identify factors associated with negative interaction ratings.

settingData were gathered at two acute English NHS hospitals between March and April 2015. Six wards for adult patients participated including medicine for older people (n=4), urology (n=1) and orthopaedics (n=1).

methodsEligible patients on participating wards were randomly selected for observation. Staff-patient interactions were observed using the Quality of Interactions Schedule. 120h of care were observed with each 2h observation session determined from a balanced random schedule (Monday-Friday, 08:00-22:00h). Multilevel logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with negative interactions.

results1554 interactions involving 133 patients were observed. The median length of interaction was 36s with a mean of 6 interactions per patient per hour. Seventy three percent of interactions were categorized as positive, 17% neutral and 10% negative. Forty percent of patients had at least one negative interaction (95% confidence interval 32% to 49%). Interactions initiated by the patient (adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 5.30), one way communication (adjusted OR 10.70), involving two or more staff (adjusted OR 5.86 for 2 staff, 6.46 for 3+ staff), having a higher total number of interactions (adjusted OR 1.09 per unit increase), and specific types of interaction content were associated with increased odds of negative interaction (p<0.05). In the full multivariable model there was no significant association with staff characteristics, skill mix or staffing levels. Patient agitation at the outset of interaction was associated with increased odds of negative interaction in a reduced model. There was no significant association with gender, age or cognitive impairment. There was substantially more variation at ward level (variance component 1.76) and observation session level (3.49) than at patient level (0.09).

conclusionThese findings present a unique insight into the quality and quantity of staff-patient interactions in acute care. While a high proportion of interactions were positive, findings indicate that there is scope for improvement. Future research should focus on further exploring factors associated with negative interactions, such as workload and ward culture.

Indexed as

Nurse-Patient RelationsNursing Staff, HospitalProfessional-Patient RelationsHumansState MedicineUnited KingdomCommunicationOlder peoplePatient experienceQuality of interactions scheduleStaff-patient interactions

Identifiers

PMID27472441
PMCPMC5042289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.