The processes of hospital discharge and recovery after blunt thoracic injuries: The patient’s perspective

Abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to explore hospital discharge processes and the self‐management of recovery in the early post‐discharge period after blunt thoracic injury from a patient perspective. Design Qualitative interview study. Methods Interviews were conducted with participants recruited from 8 sites across England and Wales between November 2019–May 2020. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted between 5–8 weeks after hospital discharge, and in total, 14 interviews were undertaken. These interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic coding. Results Three main themes were identified from the analysis: (a) challenges in the discharge process, (b) coping at home after discharge and (c) managing medications at home. Pain was a dominant thread running throughout all themes which represented an important quality and safety concern for all participants. Associated concerns included insufficient preparation and education for hospital discharge, ineffective communication and subsequent unsafe use of opioids at home highlighting unmet patient care needs.

Patient perspectives of recovery following major musculoskeletal trauma: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis

“…Twelve studies recruited participants using purposive sampling, 20,21,42,[45][46][47][49][50][51][52][53]57 three through volunteer, 8,44,55 one random, 54 one convenience, 43 and one case study. 56 One study 8 used a combination of focus groups and semistructured interviews to collect the qualitative data.…”

“…Studies collected the qualitative data face-to-face, 21,[42][43][44]46,47,[50][51][52][53]56 via telephone, 20,54 a combination of face-to-face and telephone, 8,45 or not recorded. 49,55,57 Where provided, the duration of the interviews ranged from 12 min 47 to 86 min. 57 Those who did report demographic data (including categorisation of injury type) presented this in very different ways.…”

“…Results of the quality appraisal using the JBI checklist for qualitative research and MMAT for mixed-methods research are presented in Online Supplementary Document 4. Seven papers omitted their philosophical perspective, 8,20,44,46,51,53,57 seven omitted to locate their author culturally/theoretically, 8,20,47,[51][52][53]55 and 13 papers did not adequately address the potential influence of the researcher on the participants and data collected. 8,20,[44][45][46][47]49,52,55,57 The two mixed-methods reports 50,54 presented adequate rationale for the methodology, and integrated and interpreted the qualitative and quantitative findings/results.…”

“…Seven papers omitted their philosophical perspective, 8,20,44,46,51,53,57 seven omitted to locate their author culturally/theoretically, 8,20,47,[51][52][53]55 and 13 papers did not adequately address the potential influence of the researcher on the participants and data collected. 8,20,[44][45][46][47]49,52,55,57 The two mixed-methods reports 50,54 presented adequate rationale for the methodology, and integrated and interpreted the qualitative and quantitative findings/results. However, they lacked sufficient detail to establish if the different components of the study adhered to the quality criteria of both qualitative and quantitative methods.…”

“…Participants across all studies described the emotional and physical labour associated with working towards recovery. 8,20,21,[42][43][44][45][46][47][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57] Many participants were shocked that they did not 'bounce' [Wiseman, Forster and Curtis 51 , p. 1986, participant information not provided] back from their injures as quickly as they had expected, due to unanticipated effects of injuries.…”