A qualitative study of patient experiences ofdecentralized acute healthcare services
Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen, Lilliana Del Busso, Vigdis AbrahamsenGrøndahl, Waleed Ghanima, Paul Barach & Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensen
To cite this article: Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen, Lilliana Del Busso, Vigdis AbrahamsenGrøndahl, Waleed Ghanima, Paul Barach & Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensen (2016) A qualitativestudy of patient experiences of decentralized acute healthcare services, Scandinavian Journal ofPrimary Health Care, 34:3, 317-324, DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2016.1222200
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2016.1222200
A qualitative study of patient experiences of decentralized acute healthcareservices
Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsena,b, Lilliana Del Bussoc, Vigdis Abrahamsen Grøndahlc, Waleed Ghanimaa,b,Paul Barachd and Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensena,c
aDepartment of Research, Østfold Hospital Trust, Sarpsborg, Østfold, Norway; bInstitute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo,Norway; cFaculty of Health and Social Studies, Østfold University College, Sarpsborg, Østfold, Norway; dWayne University School ofMedicine, Detriot, MI, USA
ABSTRACTObjective: Municipality acute wards (MAWs) have recently been launched in Norway as an alter-native to hospitalizations, and are aimed at providing treatment for patients who otherwisewould have been hospitalized. The objective of this study was to explore how patients normallyadmitted to hospitals perceived the quality and safety of treatment in MAWs.Design: The study had a qualitative design. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.Setting: The study was conducted in a county in south-eastern Norway and included five differ-ent MAWs.Patients: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants who had requiredacute health care and who had been discharged from the five MAWs.Results: Three subthemes were identified that related to the overarching theme of hospital-likestandards (“almost a hospital, but…”), namely (a) treatment and competence, (b) location andphysical environment, and (c) adequate time for care. Participants reported the treatment to becomparable to hospital care, but they also experienced limitations. Participants spoke positivelyabout MAW personnel and the advantages of having a single patient room, a calm environment,and proximity to home.Conclusions: Participants felt safe when treated at MAWs, even though they realized that thediagnostic services were not similar to that in hospitals. Geographical proximity, treatment facili-ties and time for care positively distinguished MAWs from hospitals, while the lack of diagnosticresources was stressed as a limitation.
KEY POINTSMunicipality acute wards (MAWs) have been implemented across Norway. Research on patientperspectives on the decentralization of acute healthcare in MAWs is lacking.� Patients perceive decentralized acute healthcare and treatment as being comparable to the
quality they would have expected in hospitals.� Geographical proximity, a home-like atmosphere and time for care were aspects stressed as
positive features of the decentralized services.� Lack of diagnostic resources was seen as a limitation.
ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 7 November 2015Accepted 23 May 2016
KEYWORDSAcute healthcare;decentralization; generalpractice; hospital-primarycare interface; Norway;patient experiences; qualityof care
Introduction
The Norwegian Coordination Reform (CR) has beengradually implemented in the period 2012 to 2016,but financial, juridical, organizational and professionalmeasures were first presented in a national healthcareplan in 2010 [1]. The reform aimed at increasing theproportion of patients receiving health services withintheir local community, as well as to increase generalrather than specialist services if patient observations
and treatment could be achieved without hospitaladmission [2].
A key CR measure was the establishment of munici-pal acute wards (MAWs) (in Norwegian: kommunaleakutte døgnplasser - KAD) [2]. MAWs provide a 24-hour acute service (maximum 72-hour length of stay).The aim was to target patients frequently admitted tohospital. In practice, patients should be stable enoughto be examined and treated based on general practicemethods, which typically include (1) patients with a
CONTACT Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen [email protected] Department of Research, Østfold Hospital Trust, Sarpsborg, Østfold, Norway/Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
� 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the CreativeCommons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE, 2016VOL. 34, NO. 3, 317–324http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02813432.2016.1222200
clarified diagnosis, (2) patients with worsening chronicillness in need of treatment adjustments, or (3)patients with an unsettled diagnosis who are not per-ceived as critically ill, but in need of observation [3].MAWs are organized in several ways: in nursinghomes, in “houses of health”, in local medical centres,in close proximity to casualties or hospitals/GeneralPractice Hospitals (GPHs), and as municipal or inter-municipal acute wards [4].
The idea of decentralization of care to municipalitiesin Nordic healthcare systems is not new [5,6]. In the1970s, community healthcare services were offered inGPHs (“cottage hospitals”), with the aim of reducinghospital admittance and costs [7]. Findings indicatedthat patients had positive experiences of GPHs [8]. In2002, Norway switched to a centralized healthcaremodel. During this period, most GPHs were closed.
Donabedian postulated that quality of care dependsboth on care providers’ technological prowess as wellas on their interpersonal competencies [9,10].Although patient-reported experiences of quality ofcare are more frequently used in health care, somehave questioned their importance due to the influenceof factors such as a patient’s general mood orresponse tendencies. Consequently, these perspectivesmay not mirror the actual quality of care, as measuredby infection and complication rates, although a rela-tionship between patient perceived care and technicalquality of care has been reported [11]. Moreover,patient perspectives have been positively associatedwith clinical effectiveness as well as patient safety[12,13]. As healthcare professionals (nurses and med-ical doctors), we were interested in exploring theaffect of establishment of MAWs on the patientstreated in those facilities experience of quality of careand patient safety.
The aim of this study was to explore how patientswho would normally get admitted to hospitals per-ceived the quality and safety of treatment in MAWs.
Methods
Setting and participants
The study presented here is part of a larger, mixed-method study using quantitative (Picker PatientExperience Questionnaire [14] and health-related qual-ity of life (EuroQoL-5 dimension-3 level version [15])and qualitative measures (interviewing patients andprimary-care physicians) following the national launchof the coordination reform in Norway in 2012.
Participants were recruited from five MAWs, all situ-ated in Østfold county in the south-eastern part of
Norway. Patients who were discharged in the twelve-month period June 2014 to June 2015, who wereaged 18 years or older and who spent a minimum of24 hours at the MAW were invited to participate. Ateach participating MAW, a standardized inclusion pro-cedure was followed: study nurses gave patients writ-ten and oral information about the purpose of thestudy before the patients completed a questionnaireat home.
The initial one-hundred patients who were dis-charged from each of the MAWs received, in addition tothe questionnaire, an invitation to participate in semi-structured interviews to explore patient perspectives onquality and safety. Patients who agreed to be inter-viewed signed an informed consent and returned it tothe study investigators with the questionnaire. Afterconsent was received, participants were telephoned bythe first author (ACLL) to schedule an interview.
A total of 28 interviews regarding patient experien-ces in the five MAWs were analyzed, including threethat took place beyond theme saturation (as indicatedby data replication and the identification of no newthemes), to ensure that no additional themes wereidentified [16]. Data on gender, age and length of stayfor participants are presented in Table 1. One partici-pant was excluded due to staying at a MAW for lessthan 24 hours. Of the remaining 27 participants, 16were women and 11 were men, with an even genderdistribution amongst all five MAWs.
Data collection
An interview guide was developed over several itera-tions and was based on the existing literature as wellas discussions among the authors (ACLL, LDB, VAG,LPJJ) (Table 2).
The interviews were conducted in each patient’shome (ACLL) and lasted 25 to 90minutes (average of52minutes). The interviews were conducted from 14to 21 days after discharge. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim the same or thenext day (ACLL).
Data management and analysis
Thematic analysis was performed following therecommendations of Braun and Clarke [17]. The
Table 1. Descriptive of study participants (n¼ 27).Gender Female n¼ 16 Male n¼ 11
Age (mean-years) 70, 44 71, 91Age (median–years) 69, 5 75Age (range-years) 53–90 50–85Length of stay (mean-days) 3, 38 3, 82Length of stay (range-days) 1–7 1–6
318 A.-C. L. LEONARDSEN ET AL.
analytic process consisted of four steps identifying,analyzing and reporting patterns/themes within thedata.
Two researchers independently coded the tran-scripts inductively in Norwegian to minimize subjectiv-ity (ACLL, LPJJ), identifying the most basic elements ofthe raw data that carried meaning in relation to theresearch question. Although time consuming, wechose to code for as many potential themes/patternsas possible to ensure that no information was lost.The codes were then compared and discussed untilagreement was reached (ACLL, LPJJ). The codes,themes and final analysis were discussed and inter-preted throughout the process until consensus wasachieved by the authors (ACLL, LPJJ, LDB and VAG). Aprocess of reflexivity, including continuous scrutiny ofthe first authors’ impressions, positioning and emo-tional investments, was applied throughout the datacollection phase, as well as during the analysis, toachieve ethical and fair interpretations [18].Accordingly, the first author (ACLL) noted impressionsand pre-assumptions that may influence the interviewbefore conducting each interview. After each inter-view, the first author (ACLL) made detailed notes oncontextual observations, what the patient said abouthis/her own life situation, and the researcher’s and theparticipant’s verbal and non-verbal communicationduring the interview.
The study was based on the principles stated in theDeclaration of Helsinki and on written, informedconsent.
Results
Almost a hospital, but…
Participants experienced the MAWs as hospitals butfound that the MAWs contrasted with traditional hos-pital care, which all of the participants had experienced.Only three of the 27 participants were familiar with theestablishment of MAWs. Most thought that they wouldhave to be admitted to the hospital, and they had lim-ited knowledge about the nature of the services thatthe MAWs provided. The overarching theme “Almost ahospital, but…” consisted of three subthemes:“Treatment and competence”, “Adequate time for care”,and “Location and physical environment”. Subthemesand representative quotes are presented in Table 3.
Treatment and competence
In reflecting on their stays at MAWs, several aspectswere perceived by the participants as being compar-able to a hospital, such as the administration of antibi-otics, intravenous fluids or analgesics. Patients werealso confident that their nurses and physicians wereable to perform their tasks to the expected standards.John, who had experienced several earlier hospitaliza-tions, explained:
Actually, it was the same. I got medicines, andsomeone came in, asking me if I needed something!(John, 80)
To John, treatment and accessible personnel sym-bolized responsiveness and indicated that personnel
Table 2. Interview guide. Examples of questions.Quality Safety Comparison to hospital Finishing questions
Can you please tell me a bitabout your stay [at the MAW]?(Follow-up: What was import-ant to you during your stay?)
Can you please tell me aboutyour perception of safety/lackof safety during your stay [atthe MAW]? (Follow-up: Did youtrust the doctor�s professionalcompetence?)
Have you received treatment inhospital before? If yes: howwould you compare your previ-ous experiences with the treat-ment you received [at theMAW]?
Overall, what did you find mostpositive about your stay?
How would you describe thetreatment you received[at the MAW]?
How did you feel the personneltreated you if you asked anyquestions? (Follow-up: Did youhave questions? How did thepersonnel act if you were anx-ious or worried about some-thing? Can you please describea concrete situation in whichyou had this experience?)
Do you think your experiencewould have been different ifyou had been admitted to thehospital? If yes: In what way?
What did you find most negativeabout your stay?
How did you experience the com-munication with the staff?(Follow-up: Can you pleasedescribe a concrete situation inwhich you had this experience?Did you feel that they wereinterested in your situation?Did you participate in decision-making regarding your treat-ment and care? Were there dif-ferences between differentpersonnel?)
If you compare hospital and [theMAW], what are the similaritiesand differences regardingpatient treatment?
Is there anything I haven’t askedyou about, that you would liketo add?
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE 319
took responsibility for his well-being. For the otherparticipants, the knowledge of being cared for by pro-fessional nurses and physicians allowed them to trustthat the quality of treatment was comparable to whatthey would have received in a hospital. Sarah spoke ina quiet voice:
And I trusted them! Because they were real nurses anddoctors working there! (Sarah, 66)
Sarah, as well as the other participants, found theclinical follow-up identical to what she would haveexpected in a hospital, since blood samples weredrawn and analyzed, and she underwent physicalexaminations and monitoring (e.g. measuring bloodpressure and pulse). To Carol, the MAW personnel ful-filled her expectations:
They were here with me, measuring blood pressure,following up on my temperature, how it developed,and looking after the IV (intravenous fluid) (Carol, 68)
The personnel’s ability to observe and continuouslyevaluate each patient’s condition and take necessaryaction was recalled by the participants when theydescribed their experiences at the MAWs.
I felt safe! I felt that they had lots of medicalcompetence there! They had doctors’ rounds everyday (Mary, 64)
Mary was surprised that the MAW had medicalrounds every day. This impression was emphasized byseveral of the participants, who were pleasantly
surprised. Ben, an 80-year-old man, specifically referredto the MAW as a hospital based on the treatment hehad received and the healthcare professionals workingthere:
It was a hospital. To me it was (Ben, 80)
In four of the five municipalities in this study, dis-trict hospitals had been shut down some years ago.Looking back, some regarded the MAW as a municipalhealth service that was comparable to what was inplace previously. However, some did not find the serv-ices comparable and felt more unsafe than before.Peter stated:
We were safer when we had an emergencydepartment (… ) But I am not as safe now as then(Peter, 70)
A vast proportion of the participants also experi-enced that the MAW represented something very dif-ferent from a hospital. Most described limiteddiagnostic options, including a lack of access to x-ray,ultrasound, and advanced laboratory facilities:
They cannot do everything at the MAW. That is whythey made them! So that we can have one hospital,and the MAWs for the rest (Doris, 72)
The comments made by Doris indicated that shethought if she needed more specialized medical inter-ventions, she would have to be admitted to the hos-pital. Several of the participants reported that the[MAW] personnel seemed to be aware of the
Table 3. Themes, subthemes, and representative quotes related to theme I (“Almost a hospital, but…”).Theme Subthemes Representative quotes
Almost a hospital, but… Treatment and competence But it was a hospital! To me it was! I got all the help I had expected. Theystarted examining me at once, took blood samples, blood pressure, andthe whole package!(Rebecca, 80)… and then I got to stay there, where there were doctors and nursesavailable. Got an IV cannula in my hand. (Mona, 53)… then they started giving me intravenous medications instead of oral-so I understood that they had the knowledge. (Sarah, 66)It was very hard to come home. To find out that I actually hadn’t receivedany treatment, only analgesics (.) (Thomas, 51)
Location and physical environment It is obvious that it has a lot to say. It is, after all, straight up the street.(Harry, 66)It is much closer. Otherwise you have to travel all the way [to hospital] inorder to visit. Family and relatives nearby, you see. It is easier for them.(Harry, 66)I appreciate more coming to the MAW, because you always meet someoneyou know, and it’s easy for relatives to come visit. (Kate, 71)Yes, we call it a mini-hospital. (Judy, 74)I felt more like I was (.) well (.) not in an ordinary hospital, because I waskind of more free (Stacey, 61)
Adequate time for care It seemed like they had the time to take care of you, to sit down and talk.What really helped me was the doctor who took his time, explainingthings to me, and had the time to listen to what I asked. (Andrew, 50)Yes, it is much bigger in the hospital! More patients and (.), they do nothave that much time for each patient there [hospital] as in the MAW. Irealize that (.). And perhaps more people are in need of help (.), manymore in need of food and… (Sarah, 66)
Participant pseudonym and age- in years, in parenthesis. A list of collated codes is available upon request.
320 A.-C. L. LEONARDSEN ET AL.
limitations they had regarding treatment options anddiagnostic equipment, sending patients to the hospitalas needed.
Three participants expressed scepticism about thequality of the services offered at the MAWs based onthe lack of diagnostic equipment and possibilities formore thorough investigations:
It means a lot to be met with kindness and things likethat, but that is not the main thing (.). It is to knowwhat is wrong with me, if it is possible to get adiagnosis (Fred, 82)
Participants also underscored that the MAW repre-sented a new healthcare level, a “new need”, becauseit was not a hospital, and nor was it a nursing home,but something in between. Others talked about MAWsbeing “a higher level than the casualty and a lowerlevel than the hospital” (Andrew, 50) and noted thatthe differences in treatment levels were related to the“severity of the condition” (Peter, 70).
One of the participants was critical of the compe-tence of the MAW staff. Harriet related an episode ofatrial fibrillation, for which she had to be hospitalizedone week after discharge from a MAW, to a lack ofnecessary treatment and competence during her stay.To her, these services were safe for some medical con-ditions but not all:
I would not want to be admitted there if I needed toget a diagnosis or had severe abdominal pain. No,that would have been dangerous! So, it has to beunder controlled circumstances, things they canhandle! (Harriet, 60)
Location and physical environment
When participants described the MAWs, they mostcommonly referred to the possibility of having accessto treatment within their local community, in contrastto the hospital. Participants used descriptions such as“walking distance” (Judy, 74), “close to home” (John,80), “straight up the street” (Frank, 75), “local” (Harry,66), “easily accessible” (Andrew, 50), and “short dis-tance” (Thomas, 51). Having access to care close tohome instead of having to travel to the hospital wasseen as a great advantage. Patients not only describedthe geographical location of the MAW as important fortheir own satisfaction but also thought that a treat-ment facility within their local community made it eas-ier for relatives to visit.
Participants frequently described the facilities asphysically similar to those of hospitals. However, theyfocused more on how the physical environment of theMAW differed from that of the hospital, describing theMAW as follows: “comfortable”, “calm environment”,
“small”, “intimate”, “free”, “quiet”, “relaxing”, “ability torest”, “home-like” or ““a home”. More than half of theparticipants described the atmosphere of a hospital asstressful and noisy. Additionally, the perception of acalm atmosphere was related to having a single-room.This permitted privacy, as well as the opportunity forself-chosen seclusion or socializing with other patients.Stacey explained:
I had all the time in the world to calm down and getwell. I did not have to be considerate to others in theroom or be afraid of even coughing (.). It is mucheasier with single-rooms. Easier to ask (Stacey, 61)
Having a single-room provided a better opportunityfor Stacey to relax. Sharing meant that she did not getto ask the questions she wanted or get the informa-tion she needed. Mary, as well as eleven other partici-pants, emphasized similar, positive experiences:
Often, you are placed in a room with other patients (.)I do not particularly like the doctor telling myco-patients about what is wrong with me and whatthe future plans are (Mary, 64)
Adequate time for care
Participants spoke about adequate time in relation toefficiency and waiting time, as well as time for health-care personnel to engage with them. In total, 21 partici-pants reported that doctors and nurses at MAWs hadmore time available to care for them than those in hos-pitals. The participants had experienced extensive wait-ing times in hospitals, waiting for doctors, waiting fortreatment, and waiting to be assigned a bed.Conversely, they experienced not having to wait beforereceiving help at the MAW, as Sarah (66) described:
… a doctor came almost at once. You didn’t have tolie down and wait. In the hospital, you may have towait for two hours before a doctor arrives (Sarah, 66)
As this quote illustrates, waiting-time had madeSarah feel insecure in the past, causing her to worryabout what was wrong, what was going to happennext. This feeling was supported by most of the partic-ipants. The sentiments expressed by the participantsrelated to other important aspects of time were as fol-lows: “time to talk” and “time to pop in”, “had time”and “took time”.
They stopped by if they heard me struggling tobreathe (.), even if I had not rung the bell. Theyseldom do that in hospitals, because they don’t havethe time! (Nina, 60)
Nina noted adequate time as a necessary resourcefor healthcare personnel to be able to observe and fol-low-up. Adequate time was also the premise of her
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE 321
sense of being cared for and of feeling safe, knowingthat someone would come into her room without herhaving to ask. Although patients experienced that[MAW] personnel had more time for their patients,they also attributed this to a limited workload and lessstress compared to their colleagues in hospitals, asFrank described:
It is easier to talk to those who work there! Because ifyou go to the hospital, they have a thousand differentthings to do at the same time (Frank, 75)
In reflecting on experiences from prior hospitaliza-tions, participants noted factors such as “urgency”, “ina hurry”, and that doctors and nurses were in “a rush”.These experiences prevented them from asking furtherquestions due to concerns about receiving limitedinformation. Stacey had a very different experience atthe MAW:
I understood that they were interested in listening towhat I said, and in hospitals, the doctors gatheraround the bed, a whole bunch of them. At the MAW,one lady came that I could talk to in peace and quiet(Stacey, 61)
Discussion
This study is, to the best of our knowledge, the first toexplore patient experiences with municipal acutewards after the implementation of the Norwegiancoordination reform. Our findings indicate thatalthough participants described the treatment theyreceived as being comparable to that administered inhospitals, most of them also appreciated severalaspects that were different. The MAW was seen asbeneficial due to its proximity to home and wasdescribed as an environment in which treatment andcare were delivered in a quiet and calm home-likeenvironment, and personnel had more time to care forpatients. Lack of diagnostic equipment and possibil-ities were seen as a limitation.
Although the MAW is a new service that mayevolve over time and consequently influence patientexperiences, the findings of this study provide import-ant insight into patient perspectives regarding this ser-vice. However, the study presented here has somelimitations. First, the sample came from only one geo-graphical area. However, participants from both urbanand rural areas of the county were included, whichmay be viewed as a strength. Second, the criteria foradmission to MAWs indicate that patient�s conditionsmay be less severe than the conditions of those whoare admitted to hospitals. This difference may haveaffected participant�s perspectives on earlier
hospitalizations. Finally, we chose to perform adescriptive, thematic analysis of the data. Differentmethods of analysis, such as narrative analysis[19], might have contributed to a more rich andnuanced understanding of the participants’ experien-ces [20,21].
There is growing recognition that patients’ perspec-tives are essential in the assessment of quality ofhealth care [12]. An important question is however,whether patients health care experiences reflect thequality of care or not. Indeed, there are several criticalaspects, such as e.g. the fact that most patients lackformal medical training. Consequently, it may beargued that patients’ cannot adequately assess qualityof care. For instance, Rao et al. [22] investigated therelation between older patients’ assessments of thequality of primary care and good clinical practicebased on data from administrative and clinical records.Interestingly they found that the patients’ reportswere not sufficient to assess the technical quality. Inthe current study, a lack of diagnostic equipment atthe MAW was seen as a limitation by patients, but tothem it did not imply insecurity. On the other hand,from a healthcare professional perspective, this maybe viewed as a clear limitation of these wards.
The Norwegian coordination reform aligns with anincreased focus on organizing acute healthcare serv-ices in more efficient and patient-centered ways. Themain idea is to provide healthcare services at anappropriate level and avoid unnecessary hospitaliza-tions. In a Swedish study, Norberg and colleagues [23]found that 16% of patients in contact with emergencymedical services were potential candidates for primarycare. Moreover, they found that these patients weregenerally healthier than those judged to be in need ofhospital emergency services. Consequently, observa-tion and treatment at the primary health care levelmay be suitable. In the United Kingdom, several mod-els for urgent care have been developed and imple-mented. For example, intermediate care (IC) has beenintroduced to promote quicker recovery, preventunnecessary hospital admissions and support timelyhospital discharges [24]. These interventions have,however, mostly targeted older patients, whereas theMAW treats patients aged 18 years and older. InNorway, decentralized acute care has traditionallybeen offered in GPHs or community hospitals (CH),and there are some indications that patients viewthese services positively [8,25]. However, the GPHs pro-vide treatment for other aspects than MAWs, such as,for example, rehabilitation [8]. Thus, patient experien-ces from these units and MAWs are not necessarilycomparable.
322 A.-C. L. LEONARDSEN ET AL.
Participants described receiving medical treatment atMAWs that was similar to what they had experienced inhospitals, and they were confident that they would betransferred to a hospital if specialized treatment and fol-low-up were needed. Competence—which wasdescribed by participants as the ability to observe,evaluate and act on observations—was regarded as afactor that increased their sense of safety. The definitionof competence has been debated [26], but professionalcompetence often includes the combination of know-ledge and experience, communication skills, and pro-cedural- and physical examination skills, as well as theability to make clinical judgements [27,28]. All of theseaspects were highlighted in the current study, which isin keeping with prior findings that identify these as keyqualities that influence patient satisfaction [29]. Theseaspects may, in turn, influence their evaluation of healthcare [30].
Although MAWs, GPHs and IC units are not directlycomparable, our findings support prior studies of suchunits; the patients were treated in a peaceful, relievingenvironment, in contrast to the stressful and hectic hos-pital environment [31–33]. Patient experiences havealso been found to be more positive in small and ruralhospitals than in larger and more urban hospitals [8,25].In the current study, participants also emphasized thatthe geographical proximity to home was a great advan-tage, enabling relatives to visit, which is consistent withstudies on CHs [25]. Similar findings have been reportedin studies of community hospitals in England [34,35].There are, consequently, clear parallels between thefindings of prior studies, as well as patient statements,and the findings of the current study.
Studies have shown that ideal features of the hos-pital work environment, such as better staffing ratiosof patients to nurses and decreased mental workloadsfor providers, are associated with improved patientoutcomes and satisfaction, and even with increasedquality [36–38]. Participants perceived that MAW per-sonnel had adequate time to care for them, to per-form observations and to engage with them,indicating a lower workload than in hospitals.Interpersonal attributes become the most importantindicators of perceived quality of care when technicalcompetence is assumed [28]. Furthermore, the com-fortable physical care environment, which resembled ahome rather than an institution, has been identified asan important quality of care measure [12].
Conclusions
This study indicates that patients felt safe at theMAWs, even though they realized that the diagnostic
equipment were not similar to that in hospitals.However, since patient experiences is not sufficient toassess technical quality of care, further studies, usingother methodological approaches, are needed toassess treatment outcome in MAWs. Despite these lim-itations, our findings are similar to patient input fromother decentralized organizations, which emphasizethe need to consider these experiences in the devel-opment and implementation of new healthcare serv-ices. Moreover, since modifiable aspects likecommunication helped to positively differentiateMAWs from hospitals, our findings should also influ-ence hospital administrators and healthcare professio-nals in efforts to improve health care quality.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all the study participants, aswell as the study nurses and physicians at the five MAWs.Per Grunde Weydahl, MD, Anders Sch€onbeck, MD, EspenStoreheier, MD, Guro Steine Letting, MD, Thor AsbjørnLøken, MD and Nina Mikkelsen Bakken, MD, are acknowl-edged for contributing to the planning of this project.
Ethics
The necessary approval was sought and obtained from theRegional Committee for Research Ethics in Norway (REK) (ref.no 2013/1276/REK sør-øst D), as well as the NorwegianSocial Science Data Services (NSD) (ref. no 38585).
Funding
The study was funded by the Østfold Hospital trust.
Disclosure statement
None to declare.
References
[1] Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Nasjonal helse- ogomsorgsplan (2011–2015) [National health- and careplan 2011–2015]. St. meld.16, 2010–2011 [cited 2015Oct 10]. Available from: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/f17befe0cb4c48d68c744bce3673413d/no/pdfs/stm201020110016000dddpdfs.pdf.
[2] Helse- og omsorgsdepartementet. Samhandlingsrefor-men. Rett behandling-til rett tid-på rett sted [TheCoordination Reform. Right treatment-in right time-atright place]. [Internet] Helse- og omsorgsdepartemen-tet; 2009 [cited 2015 Feb 3]. Available from: http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/HOD/Dokumenter INFO/Samhandling engelsk_PDFS.pdf.
[3] Norsk forening for allmennmedisin [NorwegianFederation of General Practice]. Medisinskfaglig vei-leder for kommunale akutte døgnplasser (KAD)
[Medical guideline for municipality acute wards(MAWs)]. Oslo: Den Norske Legeforening [TheNorwegian medical Association]; 2014. [cited 2016Aug 12]. Available from: https://legeforeningen.no/PageFiles/176624/140507%20KAD%20veileder.pdf
[4] Sundlisæter Skinner SM. Skeptiske leger og tommesenger? Bruken av de kommunale akuttedøgnplassene [Sceptical doctors and empty beds? Theutilization of the municipality acute wards]. Høgskoleni Gjøvik/Senter for omsorgsforskning øst, rapportserie10/2015; 2015. Available at: www.omsorgsforskning.no
[5] Bergman SE. Swedish models of health care reform: areview and assessment. Int J Health Plan Manage1998;13:91–106.
[6] Vrangbæk K. Towards a typology for decentralizationin health care. In: Saltman R, Bankauskaite V,Vrangbæk K, editors. Decentralization in health care-strategies and outcomes. Maidenhead & New York:McGraw-Hill; 2007.
[7] Aaraas I. The Finnmark general practitioner hospitalstudy. Patient characteristics, patient flow and alterna-tive care level. Scand J Prim Health Care1995;13:250–256.
[8] Aaraas I. Sykestuer i Finnmark. En studie av bruk ognytteverdi. Tromsø: Institutt for samfunnsmedisin;1998.
[9] Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care.Milbank Fund Q 2005;83:691–729.
[10] Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it beassessed? JAMA 1988;260:1743–1748.
[11] Isaac T, Zaslavsky A, Cleary P, et al. The relationshipbetween patient�s perception of care and measure ofhospital quality and safety. Health Ser Res2010;45:1024–1040.
[12] Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evi-dence on the links between patient experience andclinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open 2013;3:3.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570.
[13] Rathert C, Brandt J, Williams ES. Putting the 'patient'in patient safety: a qualitative study of consumerexperiences. Health Expect 2012;15:327–336.
[14] Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker PatientExperience Questionnaire: development and valid-ation using data from in-patient surveys in five coun-tries. Int J Qual Health C 2002;14:353–358.
[15] EuroQol Group. EuroQol - a new facility for the meas-urement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy1990;16:199–208.
[16] Strauss AL, Corbin JM. Basics of qualitative research.Newbury Park: Sage; 1990.
[17] Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psych-ology. Qual Res Psychol 2006;3:77–101.
[18] Gough B, Finlay L. Reflexivity: a practical guide forresearchers in health and social sciences. Oxford:Blackwell Science; 2003.
[19] Langdridge D. Hermeneutic phenomenology: argu-ments for a new social psychology. History PhilisophyPsychol 2003;5:30–45.
[20] Kvale S. InterViews: an introduction to qualitativeresearch interviews. California: Sage Publications;1996.
[21] Langdridge D. Phenomenological psychology: theory,research and method. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education;2007.
[22] Rao M, Clarke A, Sanderson C, et al. Patients’ ownassessments of quality of primary care compared withobjective records based measures of technical qualityof care: cross sectional study. BMJ 2006;333:19.
[23] Norberg G, Sundstr€om W, Christensson L, et al.Swedish emergency medical services' identification ofpotential candidates for primary healthcare: retro-spective patient record study. Scand J Prim HealthCare 2015;33:311–317.
[24] Young J. The development of intermediate care serv-ices in England. Arch Gerontol Geriat 2009;49:21–25.
[25] Lappegard Ø, Hjortdahl P. Perceived quality of analternative to acute hospitalization: an analytical studyat a community hospital in Hallingdal, Norway. SocSci Med 2014;119:27–35.
[26] Norman GR. Defining competence: a methodologicalreview. New York: Springer; 1985.
[28] Calman L. Patients’ views of nurses’ competence.Nurse Educ Today 2006;26:719–712.
[29] Anderson R, Barbara A, Feldman S. What patientswant: a content analysis of key qualities that influencepatient satisfaction. J Med Pract Manage2007;22:255–261.
[30] Vedsted P, Heje HN. Association between patients'recommendation of their GP and their evaluation ofthe GP. Scand J Prim Health Care 2008;26:228–234.
[31] Martinsen B, Norlyk A, Lomborg K. Experiences ofintermediate care among older people: a phenomeno-logical study. Brit J Commun Nurs 2015;20:74–79.
[32] Griffiths P, Edwards M, Forbes A, et al. Post-acuteintermediate care in nursing-led units: a systematicreview of effectiveness. Int J Nurs Stud2005;42:107–116.
[33] Johannessen AK, Werner A, Steihaug S. Work in anintermediate unit: balancing between relational, prac-tical and moral care. J Clin Nurs 2014;23:586–595.
[34] Green J, Forster A, Young J, et al. Older people’scare experience in community and general hospitals:a comparative study. Nurs Older People2008;20:33–39.
[35] Small N, Green J, Spink J, et al. Post-acute rehabilita-tion care for older people in community hospitals andgeneral hospitals–Philosophies of care and patients'and caregivers' reported experiences: a qualitativestudy. Disabil Rehabil 2009;31:1862–1872.
[36] Kane RL, Shamliyan TA, Mueller C, et al. The associ-ation of registered nurse staffing levels and patientoutcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. MedCare 2007;45:1195–1204.
[37] Weigl M. Work conditions, mental workload andpatient care quality: a multisource study in the emer-gency department. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;25:1–10.
[38] Aiken LH, Clarke SP, Sloane DM, et al. Hospital nursestaffing and patient mortality, nurse burnout, and jobdissatisfaction. JAMA 2002;288:1987–1993.
