Asunto(s)
Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/legislación & jurisprudencia , Adhesión a Directriz/estadística & datos numéricos , Intoxicación por Plomo/diagnóstico , Exámenes Obligatorios/organización & administración , Derivación y Consulta/organización & administración , Niño , Preescolar , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital/economía , Humanos , Lactante , Intoxicación por Plomo/sangre , Exámenes Obligatorios/economía , New York , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Estudios Prospectivos , Salud Pública/economía , Salud Pública/legislación & jurisprudencia , Gobierno Estatal , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
AIM: The aim of this study was to understand how people evaluate and make sense of their experience of hospital care. METHOD: Narrative interviews were conducted with 18 patients between 4-6 weeks after an episode of inpatient care or day surgery. Participants were deliberately sampled from a population who participated in a hospital-wide audit which took place during 1 week in June 1995. Sampling criteria ensured a mix of age, gender, type of, and reason for, admission. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed and analysed using grounded theory. FINDINGS: Three categories: 'feeling informed', 'valued as an individual', and 'at home' contributed to a core category: 'building confidence, faith and trust'. Notably, confidence and trust were determined as much by observations of the care given to other people, as the care the participants themselves had received. CONCLUSIONS: More attention needs to be given to understanding the complex social and reflective process which underpin patient judgements about quality of care.