IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i23-24p4720-4732.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feeling safe or unsafe in prehospital emergency care: A qualitative study of the experiences of patients, carers and healthcare professionals

Author

Listed:
  • Juan‐Antonio Péculo‐Carrasco
  • Helena De Sola
  • María‐del‐Mar Casal‐Sánchez
  • Mónica Rodríguez‐Bouza
  • César‐Pedro Sánchez‐Almagro
  • Inmaculada Failde

Abstract

Aims and objectives To determine the feelings of safety among patients taken to hospital after requesting urgent care, based on their experiences and those of their carers and prehospital emergency care professionals. Background Little research has been performed into the perception of safety in prehospital emergency care settings worldwide, from either the perspective of the patients or from that of healthcare professionals. Design Exploratory qualitative study using focus groups in Spain. Methods The participants were patients that requested care through the emergency telephone service, their carers and the professionals of the emergency care teams. The structured sampling design was based on an intentional, nonprobability selection following pragmatic criteria. Seven groups of patients/carers and two groups of professionals were formed (65 participants). The recordings were fully transcribed before their validation and codes were assigned to ensure anonymity. The ATLAS.ti software was used for the analysis. The authors took into account the COREQ checklist for qualitative studies. Findings Neither group provided a clear definition of the meaning of feeling safe. It appeared easier to give examples that had a positive or negative influence on their perception of feeling safe. During the analysis of the discourse, six categories were detected after grouping the related codes. Conclusions For most of the patients’ feeling of being safe or very safe arose from the perception of calmness, trust and protection. Defining the perception of safety was not easy. The factors with the greatest effect on feeling safe were related to Information and communication, Person‐centred care and Professional competency, without losing sight of other factors such as Accessibility and response times of the emergency teams, Equipment and Healthcare setting. Relevance to clinical practice The findings could be used as a knowledge base in future research and for implementing procedures for improving perceptions of safety among patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan‐Antonio Péculo‐Carrasco & Helena De Sola & María‐del‐Mar Casal‐Sánchez & Mónica Rodríguez‐Bouza & César‐Pedro Sánchez‐Almagro & Inmaculada Failde, 2020. "Feeling safe or unsafe in prehospital emergency care: A qualitative study of the experiences of patients, carers and healthcare professionals," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(23-24), pages 4720-4732, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:23-24:p:4720-4732
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15513
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15513?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephanie Gettens & Paul Fulbrook & Melanie Jessup & Nancy Low Choy, 2018. "The patients’ perspective of sustaining a fall in hospital: A qualitative study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3-4), pages 743-752, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elissa Dabkowski & Simon J. Cooper & Jhodie R. Duncan & Karen Missen, 2022. "Exploring Hospital Inpatients’ Awareness of Their Falls Risk: A Qualitative Exploratory Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-14, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:23-24:p:4720-4732. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    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.