From: Patients and relatives as auditors of safe practices in oncology and hematology day hospitals
Bivariate analysis of the P&Fs characteristics between “good” and “poor” auditors * Good auditors (> 75% correct answers) ** Poor auditors (= < 75% correct answers) | Logistic regression analysis of the variables that predict being a “good” auditor | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Good auditors* n = 63 | Poor auditors** n = 73 | p value | Beta | p value | Odds Ratio | 95% CI | |||
Age: mean (sd) | 51.4 (12.5) | 62.5 (12.7) | 0.000 | −0.061 | 0.001 | 0.940 | 0.908 | 0.974 | |
Gender: n (%) | Female | 33 (46.5) | 39 (53.5) | 0.903 | |||||
Male | 30 (47.6) | 34 (52.4) | |||||||
Education: n (%) | Basic level | 20 (31.7) | 45 (68.2) | 0.000 | 0.006 | 1 (referent) | |||
Medium level | 14 (43.8) | 18 (56.3) | 0.652 | 0.208 | 1.920 | 0.696 | 5.301 | ||
High level | 28 (77.8) | 8 (22.2) | 1.738 | 0.001 | 5.684 | 1.947 | 16.591 | ||
Adverse events suffered n (%) | No | 22 (73.3) | 8 (26.7) | 0.001 | 0 | 1 (referent) | |||
Yes | 41 (38.7) | 65 (61.3) | 1.658 | 0.002 | 5.250 | 1.861 | 14.806 | ||
General perception of hospital safety | Totally safe | 19 (31.7) | 41 (68.3) | 0.002 | |||||
Other categories | 43 (57.3) | 32 (42.7) | |||||||
2.388 | 0.027 | 10.894 | Constant | ||||||
R2 Nagelkerke = 0.411 X2 Hosmer and Lemeshow =3.530 Sig = 0.897 | |||||||||
Type of participants: n (%) | Companions | 27 (60.0) | 19 (40.0) | 0.046 | |||||
Patients | 36 (40.4) | 54 (59.6) | |||||||
Type of treatment: n (%) | Chemotherapy | 52 (52.5) | 49 (47.5) | 0.05 | |||||
Transfusion | 11 (31.4) | 24 (68.6) | |||||||
Healthcare professional n (%) | Yes | 8 (57.1) | 6 (42.9) | 0.783 | |||||
No | 54 (53.5) | 49 (46.5) | |||||||
Number of Day Hospital visits: median (IQR) | 6 (15–3) | 7 (12–3) | 0.649 | ||||||
Number of hospital stays: median (IQR) | 1 (2–0) | 0 (1–0) | 0.108 |