Chapter 6 128 Table 3. The effect of time on quality of care decision communication using linear regression in the before- and after-group Variable B 95% CI for B β t p Before interventions Constant 3.344 [2.205, 4.483] 5.803 <0.001 Time 0.014 [-0.019, 0.046] 0.069 0.833 0.406 After interventions Constant 5.111 [3.018, 7.205] 4.817 <0.001 Time -0.006 [-0.035, 0.023] -0.029 -0.391 0.696 Dependent variable: Quality of care decision communication. Time is the number of days after the first training (so value is negative in the before group and positive in the after group). Unfortunately, only 22 of the 184 patients in the after-group recalled to have received the leaflet, of which 6 stated to have not read it because there was insufficient time (1), they felt too sick (2), thought it was not important (1), lost the leaflet (1) or forgot (1). None stated being scared by the subject. 14 patients rated the folder, they scored the folder a median of 8 (IQR 6-8,25) on an 11-point Likert scale (0-10). Figure 2a shows whether patients have had conversations about care decisions prior to current ED visit and with whom. In the ‘other’ group they mentioned various things, such as nursing home, districts nurse, palliative team, ambulance, pre-operative screening, or they couldn’t recall with whom exactly. Of the 106 patients that never discussed care decisions prior to the current ED visit, 71 (67%) did never think about it either. Figure 2b shows what appropriate moments to discuss care decisions are according to patients. In the open field answers of the original ‘other’ group, 4 answers were frequently given (“always”, “when relevant”, “with family” and “don’t know”), which is why we recoded these into 4 new categories and a new “other” for the residual answers.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw