ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2024
Preparation for cardiac procedures: a cross-sectional study identifying gaps between outpatients' views and experiences of patient-centred care.
Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An evaluation of outpatient satisfaction in Chinese tertiary hospitals from a patient-centered perspective: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo examine and identify gaps in care perceived as essential by patients; this study examined outpatients': (1) views on what characterizes essential care and (2) experiences of care received, in relation to cardiac catheterization and subsequent cardiovascular procedures.
methodsCross-sectional descriptive study. Surveys were posted to outpatients who had undergone elective cardiac catheterization in the prior 6 months at an Australian hospital. Participants completed a 65-item survey to determine: (a) aspects of care they perceive as essential to patients receiving care for a cardiac condition (Important Care Survey); or (b) their actual care received (Actual Care Survey). Numbers and percentages were used to calculate the most frequently identified essential care items; and the experiences of care received. Items rated as either 'Essential'/'Very important' by at least 80% of participants were determined. A gap in patient-centred care was identified as being any item that was endorsed as essential/very important by 80% or more of participants but reported as received by <80% of participants.
resultsOf 582 eligible patients, 264 (45%) returned a completed survey. A total of 43/65 items were endorsed by >80% of participants as essential. Of those, for 22 items, <80% reported the care as received. Gaps were identified in relation to general practitionerconsultation (1 item), preparation (1 item) subsequent decision making for treatment (1 item), prognosis (6 items), and post-treatment follow-up (1 item).
conclusionsAreas were identified where actual care fell short of patients' perceptions of essential care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.