Patient experience: quality of information provided by clinicians for imaging in the ambulatory unit

Abstract

introduction: Within acute medicine, medical imaging is integral to the patient's path amid illness and disease. Approximately 60 patients undergo review in the ambulatory assessment unit daily, with over half requiring a form of diagnostic imaging such as X-ray, CT, PET, MRI, or US. In this bustling environment, time constraints may hinder thorough explanation of radiology procedures by physicians. Effective communication regarding imaging scans is pivotal for patient-centred care. Studies reveal that deficiencies in information provision during these critical moments can impact patient experience1 . Understanding patient perspectives on the clarity, relevance, and timing of information provided before imaging scans is crucial for optimising care2.This study seeks to enhance patient satisfaction and outcomes by evaluating and improving the adequacy and comprehensiveness of information provided by healthcare providers regarding radiology scans in the Acute Ambulatory Unit (AAU) of a tetiary hospital. It aims to illuminate opportunities for refining communication strategies in acute medical settings. Materials and methods: We conducted a real-time survey, utilising questionnaires (provided digitally with QR codes and paper-based if needed), with a sample size of 80 patients who underwent various imaging procedures during their visit to the AAU department within a frame of 1 month. We gathered data on awareness of scan type, healthcare provider conveying scan details, patient contentment with explanation quality (including reasoning, expectations, and results), and favored communication methods for scan information dissemination. Result: In a survey of 80 patients, the majority (31) were aged 65 and above, displaying diverse age distributions. Most patients (76) demonstrated awareness of their scan type, predominantly X-rays (48) followed by CT scans (26). Physicians served as the primary source of scan information for 46 patients. Patient satisfaction varied regarding rationales given for the purpose of the scan: 56.2% reported being ‘very satisfied,’ and 28.75% were ‘satisfied,’ while some expressed dissatisfaction due to inadequate explanations. In relation to scan expectations, 61 patients found the information sufficient, while 17 believed they received insufficient details, citing reasons such as not understanding the scan's purpose. Concerning scan results, 58 patients were satisfied, 12 neutral, and nine dissatisfied. Verbal explanations in person were preferred by 71 patients for receiving information, while 19 preferred leaflets, 12 online written information, and two online videos. Additional comments underscored the necessity for obtaining detailed scan information and improving result explanations. Conclusion: Our study underscores the crucial role of effective communication in enhancing patient satisfaction and outcomes within acute medical settings, particularly in the context of medical imaging procedures. The findings reveal a diverse range of patient perspectives on the clarity, relevance, and timing of information provided before and after imaging scans. While the majority of patients expressed satisfaction with the explanations given for the purpose of the scan and the information received about scan results, there remains room for improvement, particularly in addressing the needs of patients who feel inadequately informed. Future PDSA cycles will look into implementing tailored communication strategies, such as verbal explanations in person and the provision of supplementary materials to patients.