OUP user menu

Validation of a French hospitalized patients' satisfaction questionnaire: the QSH-45

Stéphanie Antoniotti, Karine Baumstarck-Barrau, Marie-Claude Siméoni, Christophe Sapin, José Labarère, Laurent Gerbaud, Laurent Boyer, Cyril Colin, Patrice François, Pascal Auquier
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzp021 243-252 First published online: 23 June 2009

Abstract

Objective To develop a generic French self-administered instrument for measuring hospitalized patients' satisfaction based on the patient's point of view: the questionnaire for satisfaction of hospitalized (QSH) patients.

Design The development was supervised by a steering committee and undertaken through three standard steps. Item generation was derived from 95 face-to-face interviews, performed in hospitalized patients and in patients scheduled to be admitted. The item reduction led to a 69-item questionnaire. The validation process was based on validity, reliability and some aspects of external validity.

Setting Medical, surgical and obstetrical departments (n = 187) of public hospitals (n = 11) from different French regions (n = 3).

Participants Eligible patients were adult subjects hospitalized for at least 24 h.

Main outcome measures QSH, sociodemographic data, hospitalization department, visual analogue scales of satisfaction.

Results The final version of QSH contained 45 items describing 9 dimensions, leading to 2 composite scores (staff and structure index). The factor structure accounted for 71% of the total variance. Internal consistency was satisfactory (item-internal consistency over 0.40; Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.96). The scalability was satisfactory with inlier-sensitive fit (INFIT) statistics inside an acceptable range. Scores of dimensions were strongly positively correlated with visual analogue scale scores (all P < 0.001). External validity showed statistical associations between QSH scores and age or department. Participation rate was 91%.

Conclusions The availability of a reliable and valid French questionnaire concerning hospitalized patients' satisfaction, exclusively generated from patients' interviews, enables patient feedback to be incorporated in a continuous quality health-care improvement strategy.

  • inpatient satisfaction
  • questionnaire
  • psychometric properties
  • validity
  • reliability

Introduction

Patients' perception of health care has gained increasing attention over the last 20 years [1]. It is currently established that patients' opinions should supplement the usual indicators of health-care quality [2, 3], and patient satisfaction has become a significant contributing outcome in assessment and improvement of health-care quality for hospitalized populations. From the hospital's perspective, the inpatient's opinion is important to both clinical and management staff [4, 5]. Firstly, patient satisfaction with health care is predictive of future behaviours, including treatment compliance and intent to return for care [4, 6, 7]. Because of this, medical prognosis has been shown to be better in patients reporting high care satisfaction levels [8]. Secondly, patient satisfaction has emerged as an important source of information in screening for problems and developing effective plans of action for quality improvement in health-care organizations [9].

In this context, assessment of patient satisfaction has been extensively studied, as attested to by the number of publications related to this topic (10 400 publications in PubMed over the last 10 years). Largely encouraged by public health authorities, notably in France [10], the interest in assessing patient satisfaction with care is now well perceived by physicians [11]. Use of questionnaires is recognized as the most common method [12]. A review of literature revealed a large number of inpatient satisfaction instruments [1316] that have been psychometrically validated with varying evidence [17]. For the most part, these questionnaires were developed in languages other than in French and translating questionnaires could be inappropriate because satisfaction is closely dependent on cultural background and health-care system [18, 19].

Free choice of health-care system, universal health-care insurance and the existence of both private and public hospitals are particular to France and lead to variations in patient expectations [20]. Two French inpatient satisfaction questionnaires are also available [21, 22], developed following appropriate methodology. They focused on the patient point of view, but expert opinions contributed largely to designing the content of the questionnaire when generating the items. Furthermore, the development process for these questionnaires might appear somewhat unsatisfactory. One was based on a small sample of patients [21]. The second questionnaire might have restricted the content of patient reports because its items were derived from the patients' answers to open-ended questions about their experiences [22]. The experiential focus might have incited patients to identify factual and objective items rather than their perceptions and feelings relating to more human or relational aspects. The aim of our study was to develop a generic French self-administered instrument for measuring hospitalized patients' satisfaction based on exclusive patient point of view, according to the psychometric standards.

Method

General context

The initial development of the questionnaire for satisfaction of hospitalized (QSH) patients was undertaken in three steps between 1999 and 2001: item generation, item reduction and validation process, as proposed by Juniper et al. [23]. A steering committee (comprising physicians, nurses, midwives, psychologists, epidemiologists and health economic experts) supervised each step. The subjects enrolled in the three phases of development were over 18 years old, and were fluent in the French language. All gave informed consent.

Questionnaire development

Item generation (QSH-124)

The content of the questionnaire was derived from face-to-face semi-structured interviews performed by a trained interviewer, both with patients scheduled for future admission to the hospital and with hospitalized patients during hospital stay, in order to better define the different domains relating to the concept of hospital stay satisfaction. The remaining patients (31) were scheduled for a hospital stay in the next 30 days and enrolled for anaesthesia consultations. The hospitalized patients (64) came from medical, surgical and obstetrical departments; they were interviewed on the last day of their stay. This 2-fold approach enabled a widening of the satisfaction concept and a confirmation of the inpatients' point of view. The interviews, based on guidelines issued from literature [23], determined the wording in question stems and the range of response options. They were conducted until no new ideas emerged up to 95 patients. Content analysis was carried out according to two different methods. In the first method, three members of the steering committee independently read the interviews to identify recurrent domains regarding patients' expectations and perceptions of their hospitalization episode; in the second, interviews were analysed using a computerized textual approach (Alceste software). A selection of satisfaction-related statements was developed from the comparison of results obtained by the two methods. This step led to a 124-item questionnaire version (QSH-124). All items were worded positively, with a 5-point Likert scale: ‘extremely less than expected’, ‘worse than expected’, ‘a little less than expected’, ‘as expected’ and ‘better than expected’.

Item reduction (QSH-69)

QSH-124 was completed by a sample of 1274 consecutive hospitalized patients. The item reduction process took into account the results of statistical analyses and the expertise of the steering committee. Descriptive statistics were performed to examine the response distribution to each item [24, 25]. Thirty-six items with the following characteristics were removed: low response rate (<20%), low index discrimination (<0.70) and high inter-item correlation (>0.80). Nineteen items were deleted after examination of items' structure using the principal component analyses and Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Those items that were ambiguous or misunderstood were rewritten. The intermediary version contained 69 items (QSH-69), describing different aspects such as hospital staff and other structural aspects. This step was previously reported [26].

Validation of the QSH-45

The validation step was carried out in 187 health-care departments (medical: 99, surgical: 78 and obstetrical: 10). The 11 participating public hospitals were university-teaching or general hospitals, from three French regions (Provence, Auvergne and Rhône-Alpes). Eligible patients were adults hospitalized for at least 24 h. They were included on their discharge day, over 7 consecutive days in April 2001, regardless of diseases and of the length of their stay. Research assistants invited them to participate, explaining the purpose of the study. Self-administered questionnaires were given to patients agreeing to participate. Sociodemographic data, hospitalization information, department type or hospital structure were recorded. In addition to the QSH, eight visual analogue scales (0 = lowest, 100 = highest) of satisfaction were proposed: general, medical staff, nursing staff, midwifery staff, admissions, room arrangement, food, waiting time. They were asked to complete and return the questionnaire before leaving the hospital. No specification was given concerning the presence of a caregiver while they filled out the questionnaire. The patient could ask an assistance to complete part or all of the questionnaire but may have complete her/himself the questionnaire.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics of the sample included frequencies and percentages of categorical variables, and means and standard deviations of continuous variables. Only the validation of QSH-45 version was presented, including construct validity, reliability and some aspects of external validity. The construct validity was assessed using principal component factor analyses, with varimax rotation [23], in order to determine the final structure and the number of independent dimensions of inpatient satisfaction. Eigenvalues greater than or equal to 1 were retained [27]. Items were included in the dimensions if they revealed loadings greater than 0.4. In the case of multiple loading of an item on several factors, it was included in the factor that had more conceptual relationship. Item-internal consistency was assessed by correlating each item with its scale (corrected for overlap) using Pearson's coefficient (correlation of 0.4 recommended for supporting item-internal consistency [28]); item discriminant validity was assessed by determining the extent to which items correlate more highly with the dimensions they are hypothesized to represent than with the other ones [29]. For each dimension scale, internal consistency reliability was assessed by Cronbach's alpha coefficient (coefficient of at least 0.7 expected for each scale [28]). The uni-dimensionality of each dimension was assessed using Rasch analysis. The goodness-of-fit statistics [inlier-sensitive fit (INFIT), ranging between 0.7 and 1.3] ensured that all items of the scale measured the same concept. Floor and ceiling effects were reported assessing the homogeneous repartition of the response distribution. Inter-dimension correlations were examined using Pearson's and polychoric coefficients. The external validity was assessed by studying relations between dimensions of QSH and the eight visual analogue scales. The discriminant validity was determined by comparing dimension mean scores across patient groups (age, gender and type of ward). Acceptability was determined by proportions of missing values, by average completion time. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 13.0 computer software.

Results

Only the results of the final psychometric validation phase of the QSH-45 version are reported.

Sample characteristics

Of the 3253 eligible patients, 3012 (92.6%) consecutive patients were included. Non-participants did not differ according to gender, length of stay, type of ward, hospital structure, but were significantly older than participants (59.8 ± 19.4 versus 53.1 ± 19.0 years, P < 0.001). The total sample of the validation step comprised 2736 subjects (90.8%), excluding questionnaires with more than 25% of missing data in accordance with the steering committee's decision. Patients' characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1.

View this table:
Table 1

Patients characteristics

Gender
 Men1270 (46.5)
 Women1464 (53.5)
Age (years), mean ± SDa52.2 ± 18.9
Geographical regions
 Provence1054 (38.5)
 Auvergne880 (32.2)
 Rhone-Alpes802 (29.3)
Type of hospital
 University2188 (80.0)
 Non-university548 (20.0)
Department
 Medical1173 (42.9)
 Surgical1302 (47.6)
 Obstetrical261 (9.5)
  • n = 2736. Values are represented as n (%).

  • aStandard deviation.

Scoring

In accordance with the previous steps, all items were worded positively, with an unbalanced 5-point Likert scale: ‘1: extremely less than expected’, ‘2: worse than expected’, ‘3: a little less than expected’, ‘4: as expected’ and ‘5: better than expected’. For each individual, scores of dimensions were computed if at least half of its contributive items were answered. The score of each dimension was obtained by computing the mean of the item scores of the dimension, the score of each composite index was obtained by the mean of the dimension scores of the index. All dimension scores were linearly transformed and standardized on a 0–100 scale (0 lowest satisfaction, 100 highest satisfaction) (Table 2).

View this table:
Table 2

Dimension characteristics of QSH-45

Dimension/index (number of items)Mean ± SDcNMissing values (%)Item internal consistency (min–max)Item discriminant validity (min–max)Floor (%)Ceiling (%)AlphaaINFITb (min–max)
Medical staff (7)78.31 ± 13.9826831.90.80–0.850.21–0.540.213.30.930.87–1.10
Nurses' staff (7)79.96 ± 12.5526523.10.80–0.870.20–0.650.116.40.930.77–1.19
Midwives staff (7)82.53 ± 14.492494.60.82–0.880.04–0.480.424.10.940.68–1.46
Other staff (5)80.35 ± 12.9126483.20.86–0.880.20–0.690.219.00.930.77–1.08
Staff identification (4)70.86 ± 18.1526014.90.77–0.890.08–0.610.79.50.780.79–1.32
Admission (6)80.28 ± 11.6026961.50.72–0.770.16–0.500.110.80.820.87–1.08
Room arrangement (4)76.29 ± 14.5027071.10.76–0.850.19–0.410.312.80.810.61–0.81
Food (3)68.59 ± 19.0926313.80.78–0.860.12–0.271.98.40.760.81–1.11
Waiting time (2)69.65 ± 20.27246210.00.92–0.930.08–0.361.612.10.820.95–1.02
Staff index77.53 ± 11.95239512.50.71–0.8507.40.96
Structure index73.70 ± 11.33234214.40.47–0.7502.70.84
  • aCronbach's alpha, bRasch statistics, cStandard Deviation. QSH scores ranging from 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better the satisfaction.

Validity

Construct validity, internal structural validity

Of the 69 items obtained from the reduction step, 24 were discarded: (i) low response rate (<20%, 3 items), (ii) low discrimination index (<0.70, 7 items), (iii) high inter-item correlation (>0.80, 2 items) and (iv) Cronbach's alpha coefficient (12 items). The structure of the QSH-45 was confirmed by principal component factor analysis, identifying a 9-factor structure accounting for 71% of the total variance (3.8–13.1% per factor). The dimensions were named according to their constitutive items: medical staff (7 items), nurses' staff (7), other staff (5), staff identification (4) for medical and surgical wards and a supplementary midwifery staff (7) dimension for obstetrical wards, admission (6), waiting time (2), food (3) and room arrangement (4). The 45 items are detailed in the Appendix. Two factors were isolated by a second-order factor, accounting for 65% of the variance, allowing the calculation of two composite scores summarizing two different aspects of satisfaction: Staff index (medical staff, nurses' staff, other staff, staff identification and midwifery staff) and the structure index (admission, waiting time, food and room arrangement).

Internal consistency was satisfactory for all dimensions: each item achieved the 0.40 standard for item-internal consistency. The correlation of each item with its contributive dimension was higher than with the others (item discriminant validity). Floor effect ranged from 0.1 to 1.9% and ceiling effect from 8.4 to 24.1% (midwifery staff). Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.76 to 0.96 in the whole sample, indicating satisfactory internal consistency. Inter-dimension correlations were all significant (all P-value <0.001 excepted for Midwifery staff-Waiting time); they all varied from low levels (0.18) to medium levels (0.55) except for: nurses' staff with other staff (0.75), admission (0.58), staff identification (0.56); for medical staff with nurses' staff (0.60); and for other staff with admission (0.58) (Table 3). The overall scalability was satisfactory: no items showed an INFIT statistic outside the acceptable range. Positive significant correlations were found between scores provided by visual analogue scales and QSH dimension scores (Pearson's coefficients ranged from 0.30 to 0.70, all P < 0.001) (Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3

Interdimensional correlations and correlations between dimensions and respective visual analogue scale

DimensionsVisual analogue scales
Medical staffNurses'staffMidwifery staffOther staffStaff identificationAdmissionRoom arrangementFoodSpecificaGeneralb
Medical staff0.33*0.38*
Nurses' staff0.60*0.41*0.38*
Midwifery staff0.32*0.52*0.47*0.34*
Other staff0.54*0.75*0.40*0.35*
Staff identification0.55*0.56*0.40*0.54*0.37*
Admission0.54*0.58*0.39*0.58*0.47*0.39*0.37*
Room arrangement0.35*0.44*0.31*0.43*0.37*0.39*0.40*0.34*
Food0.26*0.25*0.18**0.24*0.23*0.26*0.31*0.70*0.31*
Waiting time0.32*0.31*0.130.29*0.31*0.37*0.28*0.25*0.53*0.30*
  • *P < 0.001 and **P < 0.01.

  • aSpecific satisfaction visual analogue scale assessing the same satisfaction domain, bGeneral satisfaction visual analogue scale.

External validity

There were no statistical associations according to gender. Older patients reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction than younger patients for five of eight dimensions and for the two composite indices. Significant links were revealed depending on the department: medical inpatients reported higher satisfaction levels for all dimensions, except for the staff index and waiting time dimension. Mean scores are provided in Table 4.

View this table:
Table 4

Comparisons of QSH scores (mean ± standard deviation) according to gender, age and hospitalization unit

Medical staffNurses' staffOther staffStaff identificationAdmissionRoom arrangementFoodWaiting timeIndex staffIndex structure
Gender
 Men, 127078.4 (13.1)79.8 (11.9)80.4 (12.0)70.9 (17.8)80.4 (11.0)76.5 (13.7)68.8 (18.5)69.1 (19.9)77.4 (11.3)73.7 (10.9)
 Women, 146478.2 (14.7)80.1 (13.1)80.3 (13.7)70.9 (18.4)80.2 (12.1)76.1 (15.1)68.5 (19.6)70.1 (20.6)77.7 (12.5)73.7 (11.7)
 ANOVA0.660.510.840.990.690.530.700.200.480.87
Age classes
  ≤40 yrs, 85776.4 (15.7)79.7 (12.8)79.4 (13.3)67.7 (19.1)78.8 (12.0)75.5 (14.6)64.3 (20.7)68.3 (21.5)76.4 (12.1)71.6 (11.7)
 41–65 yrs, 105078.9 (13.2)79.8 (12.6)80.6 (13.7)71.0 (18.3)80.6 (11.7)76.4 (14.3)68.9 (18.4)70.3 (20.0)77.6 (12.2)74.3 (10.9)
  ≥66 yrs, 80079.7 (12.8)80.4 (12.1)81.0 (11.8)74.1 (16.2)81.5 (10.9)77.0 (14.7)72.9 (17.0)70.2 (19.3)78.7 (11.4)75.2 (11.1)
 ANOVA<0.0010.500.028<0.001<0.0010.11<0.0010.080.001<0.001
Department
 Medical, 117379.3 (14.0)80.4 (12.7)81.4 (12.6)73.1 (17.5)81.0 (11.9)77.1 (14.7)69.5 (18.3)68.0 (21.4)78.7 (12.2)74.0 (11.5)
 Surgical, 130277.6 (13.8)79.6 (12.2)79.9 (12.8)68.8 (18.9)79.9 (11.1)75.9 (14.2)68.2 (19.6)70.5 (19.5)76.3 (11.7)73.7 (11.2)
 Obstetrical, 26177.5 (14.6)79.7 (13.5)78.4 (14.5)71.0 (16.4)78.7 (12.4)74.6 (14.9)66.4 (19.8)72.1 (18.2)79.0 (11.2))72.8 (11.4)
 ANOVA0.0070.260.001<0.0010.0040.0230.0380.002<0.0010.36
  • Significance of bold characters is value <0.05.

Acceptability

Face validity was satisfactory: the response rate was 90.8%, the average time of completion was 11.3 ± 7.5 min, the proportion of missing values per dimension never exceeded 5.0%, excepted for waiting time (10.0%). The staff and structure indices showed 12.5 and 14.4% missing values, respectively. Requiring help to complete the questionnaire was reported for 660 patients (24.1%).

Discussion

Patient satisfaction was identified as a major criterion of hospital accreditation, as outlined in the second edition of the accreditation procedure guidelines (ANAES, 2004): ‘to assess the capacity of health establishments to adapt their organization to patient expectations and needs’. Patient satisfaction assessment can be used by health-care providers to help make choices about ways of organizing and providing care, and to evaluate the impact of implementing new health-care management strategies. Pursuant to this, providing a reliable and valid instrument of patient satisfaction that can be shared between different wards or health establishments is neccesary. From this point of view, the development and validation process of this questionnaire shows that it can be considered a useful instrument.

Identifying the components of the questionnaire based on face-to-face interviews conducted not only with hospitalized patients but also with patients expecting hospitalization strengthens the content validity of the final version of the current questionnaire. Views of patients scheduled for hospitalization were sought to complement and confirm those expressed by patients during their hospital stay. Following this procedure ensured us that the components of inpatients satisfaction were identified. A comprehensive set of concepts was obtained by asking a wide variety of patients their expectations and perceptions of satisfaction. Item generation used for the two available French questionnaires followed a similar approach placing the patients' view at the centre of their item generation step, but sometimes combining items taken from published instruments or found in literature and expert opinions. One of the two questionnaires was based on a small sample of patients [21]. The second was based on the content analysis of patients' answers to three open-ended questions [22], which was less informative than qualitative generation based on semi-structured interviews. We consider our procedure more appropriate for assessment of this concept, recognizing that the content of the satisfaction with care should derive directly from patient concerns and perceptions, and that relevant information should be provided by patients themselves [30].

Our choice of an unbalanced 5-point Likert scale was based on previous reports demonstrating that it is more informative and discriminative than a ‘yes–no’ form or a balanced scale [31, 32]. Our scale contains three negative (‘1: extremely less than expected’; ‘2: worse than expected’ and ‘3: a little less than expected’) and two positive (‘4: as expected’ and ‘5: better than expected’) options; the ‘as expected’ option is to be considered positive. This point of view is debatable, as the patient's pre-hospitalization expectations are unknown. However, the diverse input of both hospitalized and pre-hospitalized patients, from which our scale is derived, should minimize this bias. The scale's modalities, from ‘extremely less than expected’ to ‘better than expected’, were identified from the interviews' content analysis. Extensive cognitive debriefing indicated that the ‘as expected’ option was perceived as a positive response choice. In our opinion, it is therefore more representative of the concept of patient expectations than a ‘satisfied/dissatisfied’ scale which can restrict the concept of perceptions. Indeed, from a conceptual point of view, satisfaction could be defined as the disparity between what patients expect and what they actually perceive. The most common model is the discrepancy model attributing a central role to patient expectations [33]. We believe that our scale better conforms to this concept, associating the perception of hospitalization and prior expectations.

Concerning the psychometric properties, our proposal meet standards. Indeed, the internal structure, supported by a high internal consistency of QSH (71% of the total variance), confirmed that inpatient satisfaction was a multidimensional concept. The identified domains are in line with the previous questionnaires. However, some variations can be defended. No specific dimensions relating to medical outcomes were retained, such as ‘quality of care’ or ‘pain’ as in other French questionnaires [21, 22]. Some items could indirectly be related to medical outcomes: they were included in staff dimensions, containing ‘comprehensive’, ‘attention’ or ‘needs’ notions. QSH emphasizes the importance of informational and communicative needs between patients and health-care providers, but does not focus on care and medical interventions. Information and communication dimensions are unusual for English satisfaction questionnaires [28] but not surprising in France where physicians are culturally sometimes reluctant to communicate precise information to their patients. As previously seen in the major French questionnaires [21, 22], the ‘patient/health-care professional’ relation was clearly expressed, with a supplementary distinction made between the different categories of health-care providers (physicians, nurses, other staff … ). Moreover, contrary to North-American or English questionnaires [17], specific aspects such as religious and financial problems were not explored—a common characteristic of classical French instruments assessing satisfaction, patient reported outcomes or quality of life. It reflects cultural differences and health-care specificity and reinforces our initial hypothesis that developing an instrument in accordance with the French context was necessary.

Associations between satisfaction levels and greater age documented in our sample were in accordance with previous studies [34]. Contrarily to similar studies [35, 36], satisfaction levels did not differ with regard to gender. These results emphasize the necessity of adjustment for patient characteristics in satisfaction surveys [37]. Furthermore, we determined that the patients' satisfaction levels were related to departments, as observed in previous reports, indicating that the instrument can be used as a valid indicator to identify weaknesses in patient care management [18, 21, 34]. Based on this information, specific actions can be targeted and implemented in order to improve patients' management.

High participation rate and speed of completion are positive indicators for both interviewed patients and concerned health-care workers and managers—a very significant factor that guarantees future use of this measure. Since the metrologic validation process, QSH has been employed in several studies, two of which were published in international, peer-reviewed and scientific journals [38, 39]. The questionnaire can emphasize elements that could be modified to improve quality of care, as a previous work has shown [11].

Limitations

This work presented several limitations. First, the non-participants differed from participants regarding age, a factor already identified as influencing satisfaction levels, with older patients reporting higher satisfaction scores [40]. Consequently, the younger participants group might have overestimated the low satisfaction level. Second, our survey lacks data about patient health status. Nevertheless, participation in a satisfaction survey was positively associated with a favourable perception of the hospital stay and a favourable health status [41, 42]. Third, some aspects of the validation process are not available at this time, notably reproducibility. The definition of the adapted time period during which to test this propriety is still the subject of debate [43]. The method of data collection employed, in which patients completed the questionnaire just before being discharged, overestimated the level of satisfaction compared with questionnaires completed at home [44]. A study is being conducted with the purpose of assessing the link between satisfaction and time after discharge.

Conclusion

The QSH, generated from exclusive patient interviews, is easy to use, and possesses satisfactory preliminary psychometric properties. The availability of a reliable and valid French questionnaire concerning hospitalized patients' satisfaction enables patient feedback to be incorporated in a continuous quality health-care improvement strategy.

Funding

This work was supported by French institutional grants from PHRC (Programme Hospitalier de la Recherche Clinique).

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Bénédicte Belgacem and Audrey Clément for their contributions as interviewer trainers, and Mohamed El Khammar for his data management.

Appendix

NFrench versionEnglish item general meaningDomainMean ± SDa [1–5]Missing values (%)
A mon arrivée à l'hôpital, …When arriving at the hospital, …
1. Le personnel administratif m'a rapidement pris(e) en charge Administrative staff registered me quicklyA4.14 ± 0.6411.3
2. Le personnel administratif a été aimable et serviable Administrative staff was helpful and kindA4.25 ± 0.5911.5
3. Concernant ma prise en charge la coordination entre les différents services administratifs a bien été organisée I felt the coordination between administrative wards was goodA4.08 ± 0.6612.5
A mon arrivée dans le service …When arriving at the department / ward …
4. Le personnel soignant m'a rapidement pris(e) en charge Health professional providers took me in quicklyA4.27 ± 0.642.4
5. Le personnel soignant m'a accueilli(e) chaleureusement Health professional providers welcomed me heartilyA4.35 ± 0.613.7
6. J'ai eu le sentiment que le personnel était au courant de mon entrée I believed that the staff knew that I was arrivingA4.18 ± 0.634.8
Durant mon séjour, les médecins / chirurgiens …During my hospital stay, the medical staff …
7. Se sont présentés / identifiés (nom, fonction) Identified themselves (name, function)SI3.89 ± 0.846.8
8. Se sont mis à ma portée pour me donner des explications Communicated with me in a comprehensive mannerMeS4.04 ± 0.754.4
9. ont été attentionnés, à l'écoute de mes problèmes Gave me attention and considered my needsMeS4.13 ± 0.694.8
10. M'ont mis(e) en confiance, m'ont rassuré(e) Won my trust and reassured meMeS4.19 ± 0.704.9
11. Sont venus me voir régulièrement Regularly came to see meMeS4.14 ± 0.703.7
12. Sont venus chaque fois que cela était nécessaire Came each time I needed themMeS4.17 ± 0.639.1
13. M'ont considéré(e) comme une « personne à part entière » Gave me full attentionMeS4.17 ± 0.626.8
14. Ont répondu à mes questions Answered all of my questionsMeS4.13 ± 0.626.2
Durant mon séjour, les infirmier(ère)s / puéricultrices …During my hospital stay, the nurses staff …
15. Se sont présenté(e)s / identifié(e)s (nom, fonction) Identified themselves (name, function)SI3.83 ± 0.858.6
16. Se sont mis(es) à ma portée pour me donner des explications Communicated with me in a comprehensive mannerNS4.12 ± 0.665.7
17.ont été attentionné(e)s, à l'écoute de mes problèmes Gave me attention and considered my needsNS4.21 ± 0.645.5
18. M'ont mis(e) en confiance, m'ont rassuré(e) Won my trust and reassured meNS4.24 ± 0.616.1
19. M'ont considéré(e) comme une « personne à part entière » Gave me full attentionNS4.23 ± 0.546.0
20. Ont fait passer entre eux(elles) l'information me concernant Shared information about myself with other nursesNS4.17 ± 0.598.6
21. M'ont aidé(e) dans les gestes de la vie quotidienne Helped me with daily activitiesNS4.22 ± 0.6116.2
22. Ont respecté mon intimitéRespected my privacyNS4.23 ± 0.543.8
Durant mon séjour, les autres personnes du service … During my hospital stay, the other staff …
23. Se sont présenté(e)s / identifié(e)s (nom, fonction) Identified themselves (name, function)SI3.76 ± 0.888.0
24. Ont été attentionné(e)s, à l'écoute de mes problèmes Gave me attention and considered my needsOS4.14 ± 0.615.7
25. Sont venu(e)s rapidement quand j'en avais besoin Quickly came in my room when neededOS4.18 ± 0.627.2
26. M'ont accueilli(e) avec gentillesse Kindly welcomed meOS4.31 ± 0.572.7
27. M'ont aidé(e) dans les gestes de la vie quotidienne Helped me with daily activitiesOS4.19 ± 0.5914.7
28. Ont fait leur travail consciencieusement Conscientiously did their workOS4.25 ± 0.582.4
Durant mon séjour, les sages-femmes …During my hospital stay, the midwives staff …
29. Se sont présentées / identifiées (nom, fonction) Identified themselves (name, function)SI4.05 ± 0.795.4
30. Se sont mises à ma portée pour me donner des explications Communicated with me in a comprehensive mannerMiS4.29 ± 0.665.4
31. M'ont mise en confiance, m'ont rassurée Won my trust and reassured meMiS4.39 ± 0.664.2
32. sont venues chaque fois que c'était nécessaire Came each time I needed themMiS4.30 ± 0.685.7
33. M'ont soulagée rapidement de mes douleurs Quickly gave me care to decrease painMiS4.24 ± 0.768.8
34. M'ont expliqué le déroulement de ma prise en charge Explained to me each step of my careMiS4.23 ± 0.686.9
35. Ont répondu à mes questions Answered all of my questionsMiS4.35 ± 0.615.4
36. Ont respecté mon intimité Respected my privacyMiS4.29 ± 0.737.7
Durant mon séjour, les délais d'attente m'ont paru …During my hospital stay, the waiting time was …
37. Pour être accompagné(e) à l'aller et au retour (consultations, radiologie, bloc opératoire, … ) Before going or coming back from clinics, operating roomsWT3.77 ± 0.8613.9
38. Pour être pris(e) en charge, une fois arrivé(e) aux consultations, en radiologie, au bloc opératoire, … When being received in clinics, operating roomWT3.80 ± 0.8712.4
Durant mon séjour, ma chambre …During my hospital stay, my room …
39. A été bien entretenue (ménage, draps changés … ) Was appropriately cleanedRA4.16 ± 0.641.8
40. Etait bien équipée (sonnettes, poignées pour se lever, … ) Was well equippedRA4.04 ± 0.702.7
Durant mon séjour, les sanitaires …During my hospital stay, my restrooms …
41. Ont été bien entretenus Were appropriately cleanedRA4.01 ± 0.754.8
42. Etaient proches de ma chambre Were in or close to my roomRA4.00 ± 0.825.8
Durant mon séjour, la nourriture …During my hospital stay, the food …
43. Etait de bonne qualité Was of good qualityF3.41 ± 1.093.4
44. Etait en quantité suffisante Was of sufficient quantityF3.92 ± 0.864.0
45. Etait adaptée à ma situation (religion, traitement, maladie … ) Was adapted to my needs (treatments, comorbidities … )F3.92 ± 0.7916.0
  • MeS, medical staff; NS, nurses' staff; MiS, midwives staff; OS, other staff; SI, staff identification; A, admission; RA, room arrangement; F, food; WT, waiting time.

  • aStandard deviation. Item scores ranging from 1 to 5; the higher the score, the better the satisfaction.

QSH-45 French version/English item general meaning/Items' characteristics

References

View Abstract