Association between Quality of Interactions Schedule ratings and care experiences of people with a dementia in general hospital settings: a validation study
Association between Quality of Interactions Schedule ratings and care experiences of people with a dementia in general hospital settings: a validation study
Introduction
Establishing methods to evaluate interactions between hospital staff and patients with a dementia is vital to inform care delivery. This study aimed to assess the validity of Quality of Interactions Schedule (QuIS) ratings in relation to the care experiences of people with a dementia in a general hospital setting.
Methods
Four hundred and ninety face‐to‐face interactions between staff and patients with a dementia (n = 107) on six medicine for older people wards in a UK National Health Service hospital were observed and rated using QuIS and the Psychological Well‐Being in Cognitively Impaired Persons (PWB‐CIP) tool. We also invited patient ratings for longer interactions (n = 217). Analyses explored associations between QuIS ratings, PWB‐CIP ratings and patient ratings.
Results
When QuIS was rated negative, the mean researcher‐rated patient psychological well‐being was lower (PWB = 7.9 out of maximum score of 10) than when QuIS was non‐negative (PWB = 8.8, p = 0.036). Negative QuIS ratings were associated with negative ratings on seven out of ten individual PWB‐CIP items. When QuIS was rated negative, the associated patient rating was 4% less likely to be ‘happy’. The patient was also 4% more likely to rate the interaction as ‘kind’. Patients struggled to participate in care ratings.
Conclusions
Some patients found responding to researcher questions difficult or not relevant, reflecting the need for development of more suitable methods in this field. Our findings of an association between lower quality QuIS‐rated interactions and lower psychological well‐being lend support to the use of QuIS with patient populations that include people with a dementia.
dementia, hospitals, patient satisfaction, process assessment (health care), quality of health care, validation study
Lee, Kellyn
6c8c3a3e-f987-4ca0-b1a6-466afeeb399c
Frankland, Jane
94f07ae3-6361-4572-b716-6fdc4ba3c75a
Griffiths, Peter
ac7afec1-7d72-4b83-b016-3a43e245265b
Hewer-Richards, Leah
57659ce6-98df-47a6-a0b8-48c811c22117
Young, Alexandra
cd1a36bc-a2f9-4c84-9649-258f5ca7e031
Bridges, Jacqueline
57e80ebe-ee5f-4219-9bbc-43215e8363cd
Lee, Kellyn
6c8c3a3e-f987-4ca0-b1a6-466afeeb399c
Frankland, Jane
94f07ae3-6361-4572-b716-6fdc4ba3c75a
Griffiths, Peter
ac7afec1-7d72-4b83-b016-3a43e245265b
Hewer-Richards, Leah
57659ce6-98df-47a6-a0b8-48c811c22117
Young, Alexandra
cd1a36bc-a2f9-4c84-9649-258f5ca7e031
Bridges, Jacqueline
57e80ebe-ee5f-4219-9bbc-43215e8363cd
Lee, Kellyn, Frankland, Jane, Griffiths, Peter, Hewer-Richards, Leah, Young, Alexandra and Bridges, Jacqueline
(2020)
Association between Quality of Interactions Schedule ratings and care experiences of people with a dementia in general hospital settings: a validation study.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
(doi:10.1002/gps.5464).
Abstract
Introduction
Establishing methods to evaluate interactions between hospital staff and patients with a dementia is vital to inform care delivery. This study aimed to assess the validity of Quality of Interactions Schedule (QuIS) ratings in relation to the care experiences of people with a dementia in a general hospital setting.
Methods
Four hundred and ninety face‐to‐face interactions between staff and patients with a dementia (n = 107) on six medicine for older people wards in a UK National Health Service hospital were observed and rated using QuIS and the Psychological Well‐Being in Cognitively Impaired Persons (PWB‐CIP) tool. We also invited patient ratings for longer interactions (n = 217). Analyses explored associations between QuIS ratings, PWB‐CIP ratings and patient ratings.
Results
When QuIS was rated negative, the mean researcher‐rated patient psychological well‐being was lower (PWB = 7.9 out of maximum score of 10) than when QuIS was non‐negative (PWB = 8.8, p = 0.036). Negative QuIS ratings were associated with negative ratings on seven out of ten individual PWB‐CIP items. When QuIS was rated negative, the associated patient rating was 4% less likely to be ‘happy’. The patient was also 4% more likely to rate the interaction as ‘kind’. Patients struggled to participate in care ratings.
Conclusions
Some patients found responding to researcher questions difficult or not relevant, reflecting the need for development of more suitable methods in this field. Our findings of an association between lower quality QuIS‐rated interactions and lower psychological well‐being lend support to the use of QuIS with patient populations that include people with a dementia.
Text
Association between Quality of Interactions Schedule ratings and care experiences of people with a dementia in general hospital settings a validation study
- Accepted Manuscript
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 8 November 2020
e-pub ahead of print date: 10 November 2020
Additional Information:
Funding Information:
With thanks to patients and staff who participated in the study and Kirsty Gladas. This report is independent research funded by National Institute for Health Research Applied Research Collaboration Wessex, Burdett Trust for Nursing, and Alzheimer's Society. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders or the Department of Health and Social Care. National Institute for Health Research CLAHRC Wessex, Burdett Trust for Nursing, Alzheimer's Society.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Keywords:
dementia, hospitals, patient satisfaction, process assessment (health care), quality of health care, validation study
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 445229
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/445229
ISSN: 0885-6230
PURE UUID: ac4281f5-c991-4a37-b4a7-f7d085821f9b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 25 Nov 2020 17:33
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 06:05
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Leah Hewer-Richards
Author:
Alexandra Young
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics