Surgical adverse outcomes and patients' evaluation of quality of care: Inherent risk or reduced quality of care?

Postgraduate Medical Journal

Volumn 84, Issue 988, 2008, Pages 93-98

  Marang Van De Mheen, Perla J ^a   Van Duijn Bakker, N ^a   Kievit, J ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HOSPITAL PATIENT; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SURGEON; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL; DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION; HOSPITALIZATION; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PEROPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STANDARD; STATISTICS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION; FEMALE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; INTRAOPERATIVE CARE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 44949139002     PISSN: 00325473     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2006.021071     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S, et al. Patients' experiences and satisfaction with health care: results of a questionnaire study of specific aspects of care. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:335-9.
2. Delbanco T. Hospital medicine: understanding and drawing on the patient's perspective. Am J Med 2001;111:S2-4.
3. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 2002;6:1-250.
4. Marang-van de Mheen PJ, van Hanegem N, Kievit J. Effectiveness of routine reporting to identify minor and serious adverse outcomes in surgical patients. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:378-82.
5. Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Stadlander MC, Kievit J. Adverse outcomes in surgical patients. Implementation of a nationwide routine reporting system. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:320-4.
6. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse outcomes and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370-6.
7. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, et al. The incidence and nature of surgical adverse outcomes in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 1999;126:66-75.
8. Kable AK, Gibberd RW, Spigelman AD. Adverse outcomes in surgical patients in Australia. Int J Dual Health Care 2002;14:269-76.
9. Davis P, Ley-Yee R, Briant R, et al. Adverse outcomes in New Zealand Public Hospitals I: occurrence and impact. N Z Med J 2002;115:U271-9.
10. Sixma HJ, van Campen C, Kerssens JJ, et al. [The QUOTE-questionnaires. Quality of care from a patients perspective; 4 new instruments] [in Dutch]. Utrecht: Nivel, 1998:1-143.
11. Winter-van der Meer ACM, Kleefstra SM, Kool RB, et al. [Satisfied, but it could be better. Satisfaction of patients in university medical centres] [in Dutch]. Report commissioned by the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centers. Utrecht: Prismant, 2004:13.
12. American Society of Anesthesiologists. New classification of physical status. Anesthesiology 1963;24:111.
13. Dudas V, Bookwalter T, Kerr KM, et al. The impact of follow-up telephone calls to patients after hospitalization. Am J Med 2001;111:S26-30.
14. Nelson JR. The importance of postdischarge telephone follow-up for hospitalists: a view from the trenches. Am J Med 2001;111:S43-4.
15. Staniszewska S, Henderson L Patients evaluations of their health care: the expression of negative evaluation and the role of adaptive strategies. Patient Educ Couns 2004;55:185-92.