↓ Skip to main content

Factors related to negative feelings experienced by emergency department patients and accompanying persons: an Israeli study

Overview of attention for article published in Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Factors related to negative feelings experienced by emergency department patients and accompanying persons: an Israeli study
Published in
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13584-017-0200-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simha F. Landau, Judy Bendalak, Gila Amitay, Ohad Marcus

Abstract

Studies on hospital violence have emphasized the importance of staff- service recipient interaction in leading to violent incidents. These incidents are the extreme result of service recipients' frustration and anger in their interaction with staff. The aim of this study was to analyze factors related to negative experiences of emergency department (ED) patients and accompanying persons in Israeli hospitals. Structured interviews with 692 participants in seven major general Israeli hospitals: 322 patients and 370 accompanying persons. Negative feelings while in the ED were reported by 23.6% of patients and 20.5% of accompanying persons. Eight aggregate variables relating to staff-patients/accompanying persons interaction were identified: 1. General attitudes of staff and quality of ED experience; 2. Staff attitudes towards patients; 3. Staff attitudes towards accompanying persons; 4. Waiting; 5. Quality of perceived medical care; 6. Information provided to patients and accompanying persons; 7. Information provided to patients, as reported by accompanying persons; and 8. Severity of medical problem. Among patients, the only significant aggregate variable related to anger and frustration was perceived quality of care. Among accompanying persons, the three significant contributors to negative feelings were: 1. Staff's general attitudes; 2. Attitudes towards patients; and 3. Severity of patients' medical problem. Analysis of specific items within the variables revealed that, whereas patients' negative feelings were related to nurses' perceived negative attitudes those of accompanying persons were related to the doctors' perceived negative attitudes. In addition, patients' negative feelings were related to low severity of medical problem, whereas accompanying persons' negative feelings were related to patients' low severity of pain. The study reveals the importance of including both patients and accompanying persons in the analysis of staff-service recipient interactions in EDs. The results are discussed in terms of patients' and accompanying persons' different perspectives. Three practical implications of the results are put forward, aiming at reducing patients/accompanying persons-staff frictions in the EDs, thus decreasing the potential of violent outbursts against ED staff: (1) implementing a framework based on "patient-centeredness" for the restoration of patient's sense of agency and empowerment; (2) broadening the scope of laws concerning patient's rights to include their families and other accompanying persons; and (3) implementing courses on interpersonal and human service skills, as well as teaching skills of handling emotional stressors experienced by both the staff and service recipients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 36 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 42 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2019.
All research outputs
#12,745,879
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
#180
of 581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,127
of 442,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Israel Journal of Health Policy Research
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,576 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.