2015
DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004806
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Online emergency department ratings, patient satisfaction and the age-old issue of communication

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
3
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While healthcare providers focus on clinical practice to achieve high quality care (Watt et al, 2005), patients place a high value on communication processes during their ED journey (Kilaru et al, 2016). Our findings concur with recent studies that thematically analysed patient feedback on social media (Yelp and Twitter), which indicate that waiting times can be proactively managed through communication (Kilaru et al, 2016;Ranney and Peimer, 2016;Perez-Carceles et al, 2010). Participants in our study emphasised that receiving updated information about their treatment and estimated wait times during the process were important.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…While healthcare providers focus on clinical practice to achieve high quality care (Watt et al, 2005), patients place a high value on communication processes during their ED journey (Kilaru et al, 2016). Our findings concur with recent studies that thematically analysed patient feedback on social media (Yelp and Twitter), which indicate that waiting times can be proactively managed through communication (Kilaru et al, 2016;Ranney and Peimer, 2016;Perez-Carceles et al, 2010). Participants in our study emphasised that receiving updated information about their treatment and estimated wait times during the process were important.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…They also recognised the wider health system's impact on ED processes. The factors we identified as important were like findings in previous studies and included reliability (Göransson and von Rosen, 2010), information (Kilaru et al, 2016;Ranney and Peimer, 2016), assurance (Bardach et al, 2016), responsiveness (Burström et al, 2013), tangibles (Coughlan and Corry, 2007;Naidu, 2009) and empathy (Gordon et al, 2010). Participants were at one in seeking therapeutic rapport from ED staff, in keeping with research looking at the beneficial relations and good communications for ED patients (Baillie, 2005).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 72%
“…Unfortunately, our study reveals that most of the patient did not know about the time of delivering medical services, and this is clearly appeared from the negative gap between patient's perception and expectation in the item R4 "Employees inform patients exactly when services would be performed" (À1.30). Our result is consistent with the finding of Kilaru et al (Kilaru et al, 2016;Ranney and Peimer, 2016) that it is crucial to keep patients updated regarding their medical treatment and the estimated waiting time. One interesting results shows that the lowest score of expectation received by R3 "Employees carry out services right the first time" (2.89).…”
Section: Waiting and Consultation Timesupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The CSQ items measured satisfaction with the intervention as a whole (eg, “How would you rate the quality of the service you received?”), whereas the other items assessed individual aspects of the technology intervention (eg, “How effective were the smartphone and sensorband in helping you meet your goals?”). The CSQ has been used with similar nontreatment seeking samples measuring satisfaction with mobile health interventions [ 59 , 60 ]. Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%