Skip to main content

Table 3 Safety survey responses in relation to the journey stage of the transition

From: Implementing a survey for patients to provide safety experience feedback following a care transition: a feasibility study

Journey Safety rating Differences in Characteristics
  N (% of all 366 respondents) Safe (%) Neutral (%) Unsafe (%) Transport typea Ageb Genderb
Communication 231 (63.1) 213 (92.2) 14 (6.1) 4 (1.7) p < 0.001
Safe
Ambulance, 93.3%
Private car, 91.0%
Patient transport, 85.7%
p = 0.121 p = 0.876
Responsiveness 230 (62.8) 207 (90.0) 20 (8.7) 3 (1.3) p < 0.001
Safe
Ambulance, 90.8%
Private car, 83.3%
Patient transport, 66.7%
p = 0.911 p = 0.463
Delays 226 (61.7) Cycle 1: 151 (73.5)
Cycle 2: 34 (45.3)
Cycle 1: 29 (19.2)
Cycle 2: 23 (30.7)
Cycle 1: 11 (7.3)
Cycle 2: 18 (24.0)
p < 0.001
Safec
Ambulance, 71.4%
Private car, 67.2%
Patient transport, 58.3%
p = 0.460 p = 0.038 (male more likely to report safe)
Falls 230 (62.8) 194 (84.3) 29 (12.6) 7 (3.0) p = 0.009
Safe
Ambulance, 90.8%
Private car, 83.3%
Patient transport, 66.7%
p = 0.420 p = 0.501
Medication 226 (61.7) 197 (87.2) 23 (10.2) 6 (2.7) p = 0.001
Safe
Ambulance, 87.7%
Private car, 87.2%
Patient transport, 91.7%
p = 0.194 p = 0.444
Hygiene 232 (63.4) 211 (90.9) 18 (7.8) 3 (1.3) p < 0.001
Safe
Ambulance, 91.7%
Private car, 92.4%
Patient transport, 81.8%
p = 0.536 p = 0.703
  1. a Kruskal-Wallis test comparing the three categories with > 10 responses: ambulance, private car, patient transport
  2. b Spearman’s rho correlation
  3. c Cycles 1 and 2 combined
\