http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7408/180-a

BMJ  2003;327:180 (26 July)
 

PDF of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article PubMed citation Related articles in PubMed Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: Eaton, L. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Patients' views

News

Hospital patients say they are not fully informed about drugs

Lynn Eaton

London

A survey of 95 000 inpatients in 176 acute hospitals in England has shown a patchy picture of patients' experiences in the NHS.

The information, gathered by researchers at the Picker Institute Europe, which is based in Oxford, found that only 28% felt they had been completely informed about the drugs they would be taking after discharge. Forty three per cent felt that they had only been partially informed or not informed at all. The remaining 30% felt they did not need any explanation of possible side effects.

Asked whether doctors or nursing staff talked about them as if they were not there, 23% said this had happened with doctors "sometimes" or "often." Seventy one per cent of patients said it did not happen with doctors, and 81% that it did not happen with nurses.

Just under half (46%) wanted to be more involved in decisions about their health care. Most respondents (70%) said their doctor had discussed their fears or anxieties either "completely" or "to some extent."

The information was collected and submitted in time to be included in the performance indicators published in July 2002, but the Department of Health has only just published it. The department has denied any cover-up of the data.

Dr Angela Coulter, chief executive of the Picker Institute Europe, however, felt that there had been unnecessary delays. She said: "We were very disappointed that ministers delayed publication of the national patient survey results for nearly a year."

The survey showed that a third of the emergency patients had to wait more than four hours and 6% for more than 12 hours before being admitted. Waits were longer in London trusts than elsewhere. Of the patients with planned admissions, 21% had their admission date changed at least once. A quarter of patients had had to share a room or ward with a member of the opposite sex.

The responses on ward cleanliness suggested that there was room for improvement. Just over half (57%) the patients reported that the ward was very clean, 36% found it fairly clean, and 7% said it was not very clean or not clean at all. Bathrooms and toilets fared less well. Only 50% of patients found them very clean, 37% fairly clean, and 11% not very clean or not clean at all.

Trusts in London did least well on cleanliness. A fifth (21%) of respondents who had been in London hospitals reported that toilets and bathrooms were not very clean or not clean at all, compared with 8% of respondents from hospitals in the north of the country and 11% of respondents in the remainder of the country.

Dr Coulter went on to say: "The main purpose of the patient surveys is to gain systematic feedback for use in quality improvement programmes. NHS Trusts need to compare their own results against national benchmarks."

The survey results are accessible at www.doh.gov.uk/acuteinpatientsurvey

PDF of this article Email this article to a friend Respond to this article PubMed citation Related articles in PubMed Download to Citation Manager Search Medline for articles by: Eaton, L. Alert me when: New articles cite this article

Collections under which this article appears: Patients' views

© 2003 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd