IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v57y2003i3p571-576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hospitalisation process seen by patients and health care professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Rentsch, Denis
  • Luthy, Christophe
  • Perneger, Thomas V.
  • Allaz, Anne-Françoise

Abstract

Appropriate use of hospitalisation is an important concern in most countries. Previous studies have relied on professional opinion regarding the appropriateness of hospital stays, neglecting the patients' point of view. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the patients' point of view about the appropriateness of their hospital stay and to evaluate agreement with health care providers' opinions. It was undertaken in a medical rehabilitation division of the University Hospitals of Geneva in Switzerland. Patients reported their opinion on the justification of their hospital stay on the day of the interview, the reason why they judged their stay to be appropriate, and the place where they should be if not. The patients' health care providers answered the same questions. Two-hundred and fifty-four patients contributed to the evaluation of 314 days of hospitalisation. Only 20 hospital days (6%) were considered unjustified by patients, compared to 63 (20%) by health care providers (p

Suggested Citation

  • Rentsch, Denis & Luthy, Christophe & Perneger, Thomas V. & Allaz, Anne-Françoise, 2003. "Hospitalisation process seen by patients and health care professionals," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 571-576, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:3:p:571-576
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(02)00404-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elaine Hogard & Roger Ellis, 2006. "Evaluation and Communication," Evaluation Review, , vol. 30(2), pages 171-187, April.
    2. Dy, Sydney Morss & Rubin, Haya R. & Lehmann, Harold P., 2005. "Why do patients and families request transfers to tertiary care? a qualitative study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(8), pages 1846-1853, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:3:p:571-576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.