Abstract

Objective

To understand the extent to which hospitalized patients participate in their care, and the association of patient participation with quality of care and patient safety.

Design

Random sample telephone survey and medical record review.

Setting

US acute care hospitals in 2003.

Participants

A total of 2025 recently hospitalized adults.

Main Outcome Measures

Hospitalized patients reported participation in their own care, assessments of overall quality of care and the presence of adverse events (AEs) in telephone interviews. Physician reviewers rated the severity and preventability of AEs identified by interview and chart review among 788 surveyed patients who also consented to medical record review.

Results

Of the 2025 patients surveyed, 99.9% of patients reported positive responses to at least one of seven measures of participation. High participation (use of >4 activities) was strongly associated with patients’ favorable ratings of the hospital quality of care (adjusted OR: 5.46, 95% CI: 4.15–7.19). Among the 788 patients with both patient survey and chart review data, there was an inverse relationship between participation and adverse events. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, patients with high participation were half as likely to have at least one adverse event during the admission (adjusted OR = 0.49, 0.31–0.78).

Conclusions

Most hospitalized patients participated in some aspects of their care. Participation was strongly associated with favorable judgments about hospital quality and reduced the risk of experiencing an adverse event.

Introduction

Patients who participate in their care may reduce the risk of medical errors by providing clinicians with current information about their medical histories, medications and drug allergies [1]. They could notify clinicians of unexpected side effects or of difficulty completing recommended tests or treatments [2–8]. Some patients may recognize and inform clinicians of lapses in care in time to prevent an adverse event [9–13]. Patient participation could foster collaboration and empowerment [11], and in turn, enhance patients' perceptions of the quality of care [14–16].

Although there is limited empirical evidence that patient participation enhances patient safety, prominent organizations implicitly endorse this approach by producing consumer advisories that encourage patients to ‘speak up,’ ‘ask questions’ and follow recommendations for protecting themselves against medical errors [17–20]. Case reports [21, 22] and several small studies document patients' ability to identify errors and adverse events [6, 9, 12, 13, 23–25]. To our knowledge, no prior studies have measured the extent of patient participation in the hospital inpatient setting or its relationship to adverse events or quality.

To better understand the nature and extent of patient participation and its impact on care, we conducted a multi-faceted study of patient safety in US acute care hospitals [26–28]. In this study, we sought to address several questions: (i) Do patients participate in aspects of their care that may affect patient safety? (ii) Are some patients more likely to participate than others? (iii) Is patient participation associated with favorable perceptions of the quality of medical care? (iv) Do patients who participate actively experience fewer adverse events? We hypothesized that a majority of patients would participate in their own care, and that participation would be associated with higher quality ratings and fewer adverse events.

Methods

Sample

We created a two-stage probability sample of patients who were discharged from US hospitals in Massachusetts. We selected the five largest acute care hospitals in the state with certainty. The remaining 66 hospitals were assigned to three groups of 22, based on size, and 5 hospitals were then selected randomly from each group. We then sampled cases from within each group to obtain a self-weighting sample size of about 6000. Of 6003 patients identified by the study hospitals, 4163 met eligibility criteria: they were adults (age 18 or older) discharged from a medical or surgical service between 1 April and 1 October 2003. A detailed account of study methods is available [26, 27].

Survey instrument

The research team designed and tested a survey instrument to elicit information about patients' experiences during a recent hospital stay. The instrument queried patients about ‘negative effects’ that they attributed to their usual medications, to new medications given during the hospitalization, to surgery, or to tests performed during the admission, and asked patients about 10 specific complications or treatment-related injuries such as heart attack and falls. We also asked respondents about their sociodemographic characteristics, their personal health history and characteristics of the index hospitalization, including their assessment of the overall quality of care.

There are no extant validated instruments measuring patient participation in inpatient care. We therefore developed a series of seven questions, based on literature review and focus groups, intended to characterize hospitalized patients' participation in activities that might promote safe care [24, 25]. Participation comprises a continuum of passive and active behaviors that include the ability to interact with caregivers, seek or obtain information, be involved in decisions and ensure the patient's wishes are followed and care is delivered safely. The so-called ‘active’ patients may perform both passive and active participation behaviors during a hospitalization. Even debilitated patients may participate meaningfully in their care if providers communicate effectively and offer opportunities to ask questions and make decisions.

Accordingly, survey questions assessed patients' (i) knowledge about their medical problem, (ii) ability to talk with health providers, (iii) ease of finding a doctor or nurse to provide needed information, (iv) perception that a clinician had described the risks and benefits associated with treatment decisions, (v) ability to participate adequately in decision-making, (vi) experience with visitors who helped make sure patients' wishes were addressed and (vii) experience checking their own medications while in the hospital (see Table 2). Questions underwent cognitive testing with 10 former patients. Some activities rely on hospital characteristics and clinician behaviors to facilitate patient participation; however, they may also reflect patients' help-seeking activities. Informed by research on the relationship between self-efficacy and patients' use of safety-oriented behaviors [10], we asked each respondent to indicate ‘In general, when in the hospital, how much can you rely on your own knowledge and alertness to protect yourself from medical errors?’ To assess the respondent's perception of the quality of care, we asked ‘What overall rating would you give to the quality of medical treatment you received during that hospital stay?’

The survey was developed and administered by telephone in collaboration with the University of Massachusetts Center for Survey Research. A total of 2582 patients completed the survey, a 62% response rate. Of the survey respondents, 2025 (78.4%) supplied information for all seven participation questions. Our analyses were restricted to these 2025 respondents.

Medical record review

The study team also collected and reviewed the medical records of a subset of subjects (n= 998) who completed the telephone survey and returned a written informed consent for chart review. Nurse reviewers, trained by investigators, completed chart abstractions using an explicit review form that was developed and tested in previous studies of adverse events affecting hospitalized patients [29]. Of the 2025 patients included in this study, 788 had their charts reviewed.

Identification of adverse events

Physician reviewer pairs identified independently potential adverse events from two sources: (i) survey respondents' reports of ‘negative effects’ related to their hospitalization and (ii) events identified by nurse reviewers during chart abstraction. The physicians then coded candidate adverse events from both medical record review and patient survey regarding the presence of an adverse event, defined as ‘unintended harm to the patient by an act of commission or omission rather than by the underlying disease or condition of the patient [30]’. Reviewers also rated severity (life-threatening, serious, significant or trivial or insignificant) and preventability (definitely, probably, probably not, definitely not). Reviewers excluded candidate adverse events if there was insufficient information to adequately understand or interpret the report, if internally inconsistent, or if the description was not clinically plausible. Interrater reliability of reviewers' pre-consensus judgments using the kappa statistic was satisfactory for the classification of adverse events (0.85), preventability (0.71) and severity (0.45) identified by survey; similar results were obtained for events identified on chart review (0.61–0.96). These figures are comparable to interrater agreement rates reported in previous studies [31, 32].

Data analyses

We analyzed the demographic and clinical characteristics of the sample, stratified by level of participation (high vs. low) using t-test, chi-square and Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. We dichotomized each participation activity by grouping positive responses (e.g. ‘always’ with ‘usually’) and negative responses (e.g. ‘somewhat difficult’ with ‘very difficult’). Because we had no a priori knowledge of the relative contribution of each item, we created a summary variable equal to the number of activities identified by each subject (possible range: 0–7). We coded low participation (0–4 activities) and high participation (5–7 activities) based on the response distribution (see Table 2).

We hypothesized that participation may be directly associated with patients' overall assessment of the quality of care during the hospitalization because high-quality hospitals may create opportunities for patients to participate in their care. Alternatively, patient participation may enhance care or create the perception of better care. In order to analyze this association, we first dichotomized patient-reported ratings of quality (excellent/very good vs. good/fair/poor). We then created a series of multivariable logistic regression models to analyze the relationship between patients' overall assessment of the quality of care during the hospitalization and each participation activity.

We also hypothesized that participation may be inversely associated with the presence of adverse events. If patient participation improves vigilance and communication with providers about potential hazards, this may prevent errors and injuries. Adverse events were coded as present if they were rated by the physician reviewer as significant, serious, life-threatening or fatal, and if the reviewer had strong or certain confidence in the rating. We also examined the subgroup of ‘serious’ adverse events, which included those rated as serious, life-threatening or fatal. ‘Preventable’ adverse events were limited to those adverse events with a physician rating of probably or definitely preventable. We created separate multivariable logistic regression models to analyze the relationship of types of participation activities and number of activities with the presence of adverse events, serious events and preventable events.

All models adjusted for demographic and clinical variables that were significant in the bivariate analyses. Models also adjusted for respondents' perceived patient safety self-efficacy [10]. We re-analyzed the data using generalized estimating equations to account for intra-hospital correlation. The results of these analyses were qualitatively the same, so we report only the results from the unclustered multivariable logistic regression models. Analyses used SAS version 9.1.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards of the investigators' institutions and of the participating hospitals.

Results

Characteristics of respondents and their hospitalization

The 2025 survey respondents had a mean age of 60.5, were 56.8% female, 3.6% Latino and 7.1% non-white. About one-quarter characterized their overall health as fair or poor. About half were admitted via the emergency department and 17.2% spent time in an intensive care unit. Additional characteristics are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics by participation level (n= 2025)

 High participation (n= 1644), n (%) Low participation (n= 381), n (%) P-value 
Age (mean ± SD) 60.8 ± 16.3 59.0 ± 16.6 0.046 
Gender   0.01 
 Male 731 (44.5) 143 (37.5)  
 Female 913 (55.5) 238 (62.5)  
Hispanic/Latino   0.19 
 Yes 54 (3.4) 18 (4.8)  
 No 1554 (96.6) 359 (95.2)  
Race   0.59 
 Asian 11 (0.7) 3 (0.8)  
 Black/African American 78 (4.9) 13 (3.5)  
 White 1488 (92.8) 349 (93.3)  
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 (0.1) 1 (0.3)  
 American Indian/Alaskan 12 (0.7) 4 (1.1)  
 Other 12 (0.7) 4 (1.1)  
Overall health   <0.001 
 Excellent 245 (15.0) 35 (9.2)  
 Very good 520 (31.7) 113 (29.7)  
 Good 500 (30.5) 99 (26.0)  
 Fair 280 (17.1) 93 (24.4)  
 Poor 93 (5.7) 41 (10.8)  
Do you have one main doctor?   0.18 
 Yes 1499 (91.4) 340 (89.2)  
 No 141 (8.6) 41 (10.8)  
For how many months or years have you been going to this doctor?   0.47 
 <6 months 98 (6.6) 29 (8.6)  
 7–12 months 113 (7.6) 27 (8.0)  
 1–2 years 129 (8.6) 32 (9.4)  
 >2 years 1153 (77.1) 250 (73.7)  
 Don't know 2 (0.1) 1 (0.3)  
Number of hospitalizations (in 6 months of 2003) 1.6 ± 1.1 1.6 ± 1.2 0.51 
Did you spend any time in an intensive care unit?   0.15 
 Yes 291 (17.2) 57 (15.0)  
 No 1301 (79.2) 306 (80.3)  
 Don't know 51 (3.1) 18 (4.7)  
Did you spend any time in the emergency room?   <0.001 
 Yes 858 (52.3) 236 (61.9)  
 No 762 (46.4) 135 (35.4)  
 Don't know 22 (1.3) 10 (2.6)  
When released, did you go home or somewhere else?   0.87 
 Home 1362 (82.9) 313 (82.6)  
 Somewhere else 280 (17.1) 66 (17.4)  
Length of stay (days)   0.08 
 1–2 317 (19.3) 64 (16.8)  
 3–5 845 (51.4) 222 (58.3)  
 6–10 375 (22.8) 79 (20.7)  
 11–15 66 (4.0) 7 (1.8)  
 16+ 41 (2.5) 9 (2.4)  
Type of location   0.12 
 Urban 1407 (85.6) 314 (82.4)  
 Non-urban 237 (14.4) 67 (17.6)  
Teaching status   0.044 
 Major 571 (35.6) 109 (29.7)  
 Minor 463 (28.9) 105 (28.6)  
 Non-teaching 568 (35.5) 153 (41.7)  
Ownership   0.65 
 Non-profit 1351 (84.3) 306 (83.4)  
 Church operated 251 (15.7) 61 (16.6)  
Bed size   0.01 
 1–100 178 (11.1) 41 (11.2)  
 101–200 382 (23.8) 82 (22.3)  
 201–300 342 (21.3) 100 (27.2)  
 301+ 700 (43.7) 144 (39.2)  
Charlson score (mean ± SD, n= 788) 1.34 ± 1.69 1.04 ± 1.47 0.048 
How much can you rely on your own knowledge and alertness to protect yourself from medical errors?   <0.001 
 A lot/some 1416 (87.0) 271 (71.9)  
 A little/not at all 212 (13.0) 106 (28.1)  
 High participation (n= 1644), n (%) Low participation (n= 381), n (%) P-value 
Age (mean ± SD) 60.8 ± 16.3 59.0 ± 16.6 0.046 
Gender   0.01 
 Male 731 (44.5) 143 (37.5)  
 Female 913 (55.5) 238 (62.5)  
Hispanic/Latino   0.19 
 Yes 54 (3.4) 18 (4.8)  
 No 1554 (96.6) 359 (95.2)  
Race   0.59 
 Asian 11 (0.7) 3 (0.8)  
 Black/African American 78 (4.9) 13 (3.5)  
 White 1488 (92.8) 349 (93.3)  
 Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 (0.1) 1 (0.3)  
 American Indian/Alaskan 12 (0.7) 4 (1.1)  
 Other 12 (0.7) 4 (1.1)  
Overall health   <0.001 
 Excellent 245 (15.0) 35 (9.2)  
 Very good 520 (31.7) 113 (29.7)  
 Good 500 (30.5) 99 (26.0)  
 Fair 280 (17.1) 93 (24.4)  
 Poor 93 (5.7) 41 (10.8)  
Do you have one main doctor?   0.18 
 Yes 1499 (91.4) 340 (89.2)  
 No 141 (8.6) 41 (10.8)  
For how many months or years have you been going to this doctor?   0.47 
 <6 months 98 (6.6) 29 (8.6)  
 7–12 months 113 (7.6) 27 (8.0)  
 1–2 years 129 (8.6) 32 (9.4)  
 >2 years 1153 (77.1) 250 (73.7)  
 Don't know 2 (0.1) 1 (0.3)  
Number of hospitalizations (in 6 months of 2003) 1.6 ± 1.1 1.6 ± 1.2 0.51 
Did you spend any time in an intensive care unit?   0.15 
 Yes 291 (17.2) 57 (15.0)  
 No 1301 (79.2) 306 (80.3)  
 Don't know 51 (3.1) 18 (4.7)  
Did you spend any time in the emergency room?   <0.001 
 Yes 858 (52.3) 236 (61.9)  
 No 762 (46.4) 135 (35.4)  
 Don't know 22 (1.3) 10 (2.6)  
When released, did you go home or somewhere else?   0.87 
 Home 1362 (82.9) 313 (82.6)  
 Somewhere else 280 (17.1) 66 (17.4)  
Length of stay (days)   0.08 
 1–2 317 (19.3) 64 (16.8)  
 3–5 845 (51.4) 222 (58.3)  
 6–10 375 (22.8) 79 (20.7)  
 11–15 66 (4.0) 7 (1.8)  
 16+ 41 (2.5) 9 (2.4)  
Type of location   0.12 
 Urban 1407 (85.6) 314 (82.4)  
 Non-urban 237 (14.4) 67 (17.6)  
Teaching status   0.044 
 Major 571 (35.6) 109 (29.7)  
 Minor 463 (28.9) 105 (28.6)  
 Non-teaching 568 (35.5) 153 (41.7)  
Ownership   0.65 
 Non-profit 1351 (84.3) 306 (83.4)  
 Church operated 251 (15.7) 61 (16.6)  
Bed size   0.01 
 1–100 178 (11.1) 41 (11.2)  
 101–200 382 (23.8) 82 (22.3)  
 201–300 342 (21.3) 100 (27.2)  
 301+ 700 (43.7) 144 (39.2)  
Charlson score (mean ± SD, n= 788) 1.34 ± 1.69 1.04 ± 1.47 0.048 
How much can you rely on your own knowledge and alertness to protect yourself from medical errors?   <0.001 
 A lot/some 1416 (87.0) 271 (71.9)  
 A little/not at all 212 (13.0) 106 (28.1)  

Patient participation in care

Nearly all (99.9%) patients reported at least one participatory activity during the hospitalization, as shown in Table 2. On average, patients reported 5.5 (±1.3) of the seven forms of participation during the hospitalization; 81.2% of respondents reported five or more (‘high participation’ group). However, some forms of participation were more prevalent than others. For example, 86.0% of respondents usually or always felt well enough to talk with their doctors or nurses and 79.1% had a visitor who usually or always made sure their wishes were followed. In contrast, only 39.4% of respondents usually or always checked to make sure they received the correct medications.

Table 2

Patient-reported participation activities (n= 2025)

Survey question n (%) 
(1) During that hospital stay, how much did you know about the medical problem for which you were admitted?  
 A lota 1280 (63.2) 
 Somea 394 (19.5) 
 A little 220 (10.9) 
 Not at all 131 (6.5) 
(2) During that hospital stay, how often did you feel well enough to be able to talk with your doctors and nurses 
 Alwaysa 1345 (66.4) 
 Usuallya 397 (19.6) 
 Sometimes 260 (12.8) 
 Never 23 (1.1) 
(3) When you wanted information about your care and treatment, how easy or difficult was it to find a doctor or nurse to tell you what you wanted to know 
 Very easya 1024 (50.6) 
 Somewhat easya 732 (36.1) 
 Somewhat difficult 211 (10.4) 
 Very difficult 58 (2.9) 
(4) During the hospital stay, when decisions had to be made, how often did your doctors and nurses describe the good and bad things about your treatment options 
 Alwaysa 1230 (60.7) 
 Usuallya 396 (19.6) 
 Sometimes 295 (14.6) 
 Never 104 (5.1) 
(5) Did you participate in the decisions your doctors made about your care … ?  
 Less than wanted 181 (8.9) 
 About the right amounta 1818 (89.8) 
 More than wanteda 26 (1.3) 
(6) During that hospital stay, did you have a family member or a friend visit you? If yes, did that person help you make sure your health care wishes were being followed by the hospital staff?  
 Visitor always made surea 1237 (61.1) 
 Visitor usually made surea 364 (18.0) 
 Visitor sometimes made sure 182 (9.0) 
 Visitor never made sure 222 (11.0) 
 No visitors 20 (1.0) 
(7) During that hospital stay, when you were given medicines, did you ever check to make sure that they were the correct ones? If yes, how often did you check the medicines given to you by the hospital staff?  
 Checked alwaysa 637 (31.5) 
 Checked usuallya 160 (7.9) 
 Checked sometimes 108 (5.3) 
 Did not check 1120 (55.3) 
Number of participation activities  
 0 3 (0.1) 
 1 18 (0.9) 
 2 66 (3.3) 
 3 106 (5.2) 
 4 188 (9.3) 
 5 483 (23.9) 
 6 722 (35.7) 
 7 439 (21.7) 
 Mean ± SD [range] 5.45 ± 1.34 [0–7] 
Participation  
 Low (0–4) 381 (18.8) 
 High (5–7) 1644 (81.2) 
Survey question n (%) 
(1) During that hospital stay, how much did you know about the medical problem for which you were admitted?  
 A lota 1280 (63.2) 
 Somea 394 (19.5) 
 A little 220 (10.9) 
 Not at all 131 (6.5) 
(2) During that hospital stay, how often did you feel well enough to be able to talk with your doctors and nurses 
 Alwaysa 1345 (66.4) 
 Usuallya 397 (19.6) 
 Sometimes 260 (12.8) 
 Never 23 (1.1) 
(3) When you wanted information about your care and treatment, how easy or difficult was it to find a doctor or nurse to tell you what you wanted to know 
 Very easya 1024 (50.6) 
 Somewhat easya 732 (36.1) 
 Somewhat difficult 211 (10.4) 
 Very difficult 58 (2.9) 
(4) During the hospital stay, when decisions had to be made, how often did your doctors and nurses describe the good and bad things about your treatment options 
 Alwaysa 1230 (60.7) 
 Usuallya 396 (19.6) 
 Sometimes 295 (14.6) 
 Never 104 (5.1) 
(5) Did you participate in the decisions your doctors made about your care … ?  
 Less than wanted 181 (8.9) 
 About the right amounta 1818 (89.8) 
 More than wanteda 26 (1.3) 
(6) During that hospital stay, did you have a family member or a friend visit you? If yes, did that person help you make sure your health care wishes were being followed by the hospital staff?  
 Visitor always made surea 1237 (61.1) 
 Visitor usually made surea 364 (18.0) 
 Visitor sometimes made sure 182 (9.0) 
 Visitor never made sure 222 (11.0) 
 No visitors 20 (1.0) 
(7) During that hospital stay, when you were given medicines, did you ever check to make sure that they were the correct ones? If yes, how often did you check the medicines given to you by the hospital staff?  
 Checked alwaysa 637 (31.5) 
 Checked usuallya 160 (7.9) 
 Checked sometimes 108 (5.3) 
 Did not check 1120 (55.3) 
Number of participation activities  
 0 3 (0.1) 
 1 18 (0.9) 
 2 66 (3.3) 
 3 106 (5.2) 
 4 188 (9.3) 
 5 483 (23.9) 
 6 722 (35.7) 
 7 439 (21.7) 
 Mean ± SD [range] 5.45 ± 1.34 [0–7] 
Participation  
 Low (0–4) 381 (18.8) 
 High (5–7) 1644 (81.2) 

aPositive participation activities.

Characteristics of participatory patients

Table 1 presents the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with high (5–7) vs. low (0–4) participation activities. The more participatory patients were slightly older than those who participated less, and included a higher proportion of men and a smaller percent of those who characterized their overall health as fair or poor. Patients reporting more participation were less likely to be admitted via the emergency department, were more likely to have been treated in major teaching hospitals and were more likely to express confidence in their ability to protect themselves from medical errors.

Participation and perceptions of hospital quality

Overall, 89.1% of patients in the high participation group rated the quality of care very good or excellent compared with 57.8% of the low participation group (P< 0.001), and there was a direct and consistent relationship between patients' specific participation activities and their rating of the quality of care (Table 3). In multivariable analyses, patients who endorsed each participation activity except checking one's medications were more likely to describe the overall quality of care as ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’. In fact, the odds of the patient endorsing very good or excellent quality care was more than 5-fold higher (adjusted OR: 5.46, 95% CI: 4.15–7.19) for patients with high compared with those with low participation.

Table 3

Relationship between participation activities and patient-reported overall quality (n= 2025)

Participation activity Very good or excellent quality, n (%) Bivariate OR (95% CI) Multivariable OR (95% CI) 
Knew about the problem prompting admission (a lot/some) 1428/1673 (85.4) 2.14 (1.63–2.81) 2.05 (1.53–2.74) 
Felt well enough to talk with doctor/nurse (always/usually) 1501/1740 (86.3) 3.43 (2.60–4.54) 2.99 (2.22–4.01) 
Found a doctor/nurse to tell you what you wanted to know (very/somewhat easy) 1562/1756 (89.0) 9.57 (7.21–12.70) 8.28 (6.17–11.11) 
Doctor/nurse described good/bad things about treatment options (always/usually) 1449/1626 (89.1) 5.64 (4.38–7.27) 6.03 (4.58–7.93) 
Participated in decisions (more than wanted/about the right amount) 1601/1844 (86.8) 7.62 (5.51–10.53) 6.04 (4.30–8.48) 
Visitor made sure wishes were followed (always/usually) 1350/1600 (84.4) 1.44 (1.10–1.89) 1.34 (1.01–1.79) 
Checked your medicines (checked usually/always) 654/795 (82.3) 0.89 (0.70–1.13) 0.96 (0.74–1.24) 
Participation (high) 1465/1644 (89.1) 5.98 (4.63–7.73) 5.46 (4.15–7.19) 
Participation activity Very good or excellent quality, n (%) Bivariate OR (95% CI) Multivariable OR (95% CI) 
Knew about the problem prompting admission (a lot/some) 1428/1673 (85.4) 2.14 (1.63–2.81) 2.05 (1.53–2.74) 
Felt well enough to talk with doctor/nurse (always/usually) 1501/1740 (86.3) 3.43 (2.60–4.54) 2.99 (2.22–4.01) 
Found a doctor/nurse to tell you what you wanted to know (very/somewhat easy) 1562/1756 (89.0) 9.57 (7.21–12.70) 8.28 (6.17–11.11) 
Doctor/nurse described good/bad things about treatment options (always/usually) 1449/1626 (89.1) 5.64 (4.38–7.27) 6.03 (4.58–7.93) 
Participated in decisions (more than wanted/about the right amount) 1601/1844 (86.8) 7.62 (5.51–10.53) 6.04 (4.30–8.48) 
Visitor made sure wishes were followed (always/usually) 1350/1600 (84.4) 1.44 (1.10–1.89) 1.34 (1.01–1.79) 
Checked your medicines (checked usually/always) 654/795 (82.3) 0.89 (0.70–1.13) 0.96 (0.74–1.24) 
Participation (high) 1465/1644 (89.1) 5.98 (4.63–7.73) 5.46 (4.15–7.19) 

Multivariable models were run individually, each controlling for age, gender, self-rated overall health, teaching status of the hospital and self-efficacy.

OR, odds ratio.

Participation and adverse events

Among the 788 surveyed patients who also agreed to medical record review, 163 patients experienced at least one significant, serious or life-threatening adverse event during or as a result of the hospitalization. Of these 163 patients, 108 were identified by patient survey only, 32 on chart review only and 23 by both methods. Fifty-six patients had at least one serious or life-threatening adverse event and 69 had at least one preventable adverse event.

In multivariable logistic regression analyses, the presence of at least one adverse event was less likely among patients who felt well enough to talk with their doctors or nurses, who said they could find a doctor or nurse when they wanted information, whose doctors and nurses described the pros and cons of their treatment options or who participated in decisions (Table 4). Patients in the high participation group were less likely to have at least one adverse event during the admission (0.49, 0.31–0.78). Many of these associations persisted in analyses examining the relationship between participation and the occurrence of preventable adverse events (i.e. medical errors).

Table 4

Relationship between participation and adverse events reported by patient or identified on chart review (n= 788)

Participation activity Patients with at least one adverse event (n= 163), multivariable OR (95% CI) Patients with at least one serious adverse event (n= 56), multivariable OR (95% CI) Patients with at least one preventable adverse event (n= 69), multivariable OR (95% CI) 
Knew about the problem prompting admission (a lot/some) 1.15 (0.67–1.98) 1.18 (0.48–2.87) 1.16 (0.53–2.54) 
Felt well enough to talk with doctor/nurse (always/usually) 0.33 (0.20–0.53) 0.57 (0.26–1.25) 0.38 (0.20–0.71) 
Found a doctor/nurse to tell you what you wanted to know (very/somewhat easy) 0.50 (0.30–0.82) 0.73 (0.33–1.63) 0.44 (0.23–0.84) 
Doctor/nurse described good/bad things about treatment options (always/usually) 0.60 (0.39–0.94) 1.01 (0.48–2.16) 0.74 (0.39–1.37) 
Participated in decisions (more than wanted/About the right amount) 0.36 (0.20–0.65) 0.43 (0.18–1.02) 0.38 (0.18–0.82) 
Visitor made sure wishes were followed (always/usually) 1.15 (0.74–1.79) 1.94 (0.85–4.44) 1.39 (0.71–2.69) 
Checked your medicines (checked usually/always) 0.95 (0.65–1.40) 0.81 (0.44–1.49) 1.47 (0.85–2.52) 
Participation (high) 0.49 (0.31–0.78) 0.96 (0.43–2.15) 0.63 (0.33–1.19) 
Participation activity Patients with at least one adverse event (n= 163), multivariable OR (95% CI) Patients with at least one serious adverse event (n= 56), multivariable OR (95% CI) Patients with at least one preventable adverse event (n= 69), multivariable OR (95% CI) 
Knew about the problem prompting admission (a lot/some) 1.15 (0.67–1.98) 1.18 (0.48–2.87) 1.16 (0.53–2.54) 
Felt well enough to talk with doctor/nurse (always/usually) 0.33 (0.20–0.53) 0.57 (0.26–1.25) 0.38 (0.20–0.71) 
Found a doctor/nurse to tell you what you wanted to know (very/somewhat easy) 0.50 (0.30–0.82) 0.73 (0.33–1.63) 0.44 (0.23–0.84) 
Doctor/nurse described good/bad things about treatment options (always/usually) 0.60 (0.39–0.94) 1.01 (0.48–2.16) 0.74 (0.39–1.37) 
Participated in decisions (more than wanted/About the right amount) 0.36 (0.20–0.65) 0.43 (0.18–1.02) 0.38 (0.18–0.82) 
Visitor made sure wishes were followed (always/usually) 1.15 (0.74–1.79) 1.94 (0.85–4.44) 1.39 (0.71–2.69) 
Checked your medicines (checked usually/always) 0.95 (0.65–1.40) 0.81 (0.44–1.49) 1.47 (0.85–2.52) 
Participation (high) 0.49 (0.31–0.78) 0.96 (0.43–2.15) 0.63 (0.33–1.19) 

Multivariable models were run individually, each controlling for age, gender, self-rated overall health, Charlson score, teaching status of the hospital and self-efficacy.

OR, odds ratio.

Discussion

In this study of patients treated in US acute care hospitals, virtually all respondents participated in their care during hospitalization in ways that might promote patient safety. Patients reported that they were aware of the reason for their admission, felt well enough to communicate with caregivers, found a clinician who could provide information, discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment options, and participated in decisions about their care. Fewer respondents reported the most ‘active’ participation activities, such as checking to make sure that their medications were correct. Those with greater participation were more likely to report high quality of care and, importantly, were less likely to experience adverse events.

The inverse association between participation and adverse events supports the theory that participatory patients observed, identified and communicated potential problems before they resulted in medical injuries. This association was demonstrated consistently for the more passive forms of participation, and persisted for analyses of serious and preventable adverse events. This suggests that safety is a product of the interaction between patients and families on the one hand, and providers and their hospitals on the other. Safety-oriented health-care organizations may create conditions that facilitate patients' access to their providers, ready provision of information and participatory decision-making. Patient participation and involvement is a nuanced concept, encompassing efforts and contributions of patients and their caregivers, their respective views and feelings, and their relationships with one another [33].

More active forms of participation, such as having a visitor advocate for the patient or a patient check his or her own medications, were not protective, perhaps because there were fewer opportunities to perform these functions or to perform them consistently enough to defend against occasional lapses of care [25]. Patients' willingness to perform certain tasks (e.g. asking providers if they washed their hands) depends on the perceived risk, level of confrontation required, patients' self-efficacy and perceived degree of control and effectiveness [10, 34–37]. Active participation measures may be mismatched with types of adverse events that hospitalized patients' experience. Drug checking would be unlikely to prevent procedure-related errors and post-operative infections. Conversely, a patient may more readily identify errors involving drugs they take routinely at home, compared with medications that are newly prescribed in the hospital.

The impact of patient participation on patient safety is complex and methodologically challenging. We believe the dominant effect links patient participation with heightened vigilance and effective communication with the care team, resulting in the identification of adverse events and interception of clinical lapses before adverse events occur. However, the experience of a serious adverse event could decrease a patient's capacity to participate as a consequence of the injury. On the other hand, observation of a medical error or an adverse event could increase patients' vigilance, increasing the probability of identifying adverse events, and potentially confounding the protective effect of participation. The final result will be a combination of these effects.

Our study suggests that patient-oriented patient safety initiatives are feasible among hospital inpatients, since patient participation activities were widespread even among this vulnerable population. A variety of models for promoting patients' self-protective behaviors have been proposed, including educational initiatives, patient-initiated incident reports and patient-activated rapid response teams [38–42]. However, given the beneficial effect of passive forms of participation, organizations should consider focusing their efforts on simple measures such as making it easier for patients to find a doctor or nurse, encouraging staff to address patients' questions and facilitating participatory decision-making.

This study has several limitations. First, patients who died during their hospitalization or before the surveys were administered were not included. If these patients were less able to participate in their care, our results overestimate the extent of participation among inpatients. Second, older and sicker patients may be less likely to report adverse events or to participate in their care. If these patients experience more adverse events, then their under-reporting would result in an underestimate of the observed association between participation and adverse events. Third, less than half of the cohort we surveyed authorized medical record review. It is possible that non-response bias affected ascertainment of adverse events or participation, as we found a small difference in the mean participation level of those who did and did not authorize medical record review (5.56 vs. 5.38, P= 0.002). Fourth, patients were surveyed 6–12 months after discharge, due to administrative delays, which may have contributed to possible recall bias. Social desirability bias may also be present, in which patients assumed that more participation was better, potentially overestimating their level of participation. Fifth, our study did not investigate hospital or provider attributes that may promote patient participation, potentially confounding the relationship between patient participation, quality and safety. Finally, ascertainment of adverse events was limited by the data available by patient survey and in the medical record. Physician reviewers used their best judgment about the plausibility of the evidence in making these judgments, but patient reports may be inaccurate and chart review methods likely underestimate the prevalence of adverse events. Nevertheless, we used standard methods for making these judgments.

In summary, our study provides evidence of the capacity of hospital inpatients to participate in their care in a variety of ways that are associated with enhanced perceptions of quality and reduced adverse events. Additional research is required to understand what interventions offer the most promise for encouraging participation and preventing adverse events. Organizations cannot shift the burden of responsibility for safe care to patients and families [41], but they can create an environment where patients and their families serve as an additional and often unaccounted source of strength and resilience.

Funding

This work was supported by a Cooperative Agreement from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health [U18 HS11928]; and the Center for Patient Safety, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

References

1
Weingart
SN
Cleary
A
Seger
A
, et al.  . 
Medication reconciliation in ambulatory oncology
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
 , 
2007
, vol. 
33
 (pg. 
750
-
7
)
2
Basch
E
Artz
D
Dulko
D
, et al.  . 
Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy
J Clin Oncol
 , 
2005
, vol. 
23
 (pg. 
3552
-
61
)
3
Beckjord
EB
Finney Rutten
LJ
Squiers
L
, et al.  . 
Use of the internet to communicate with health care providers in the United States: estimates from the 2003 and 2005 Health Information National Trends Surveys (HINTS)
J Med Internet Res
 , 
2007
, vol. 
9
 pg. 
e20
 
4
Wald
JS
Middleton
B
Bloom
A
, et al.  . 
A patient-controlled journal for an electronic medical record: issues and challenges
Stud Health Technol Inform
 , 
2004
, vol. 
107
 (pg. 
1166
-
70
)
5
Wasson
JH
MacKenzie
TA
Hall
M
Patients use an internet technology to report when things go wrong
Qual Saf Health Care
 , 
2007
, vol. 
16
 (pg. 
213
-
5
)
6
Weingart
SN
Gandhi
TK
Seger
AC
, et al.  . 
Patient-reported medication symptoms in primary care
Arch Intern Med
 , 
2005
, vol. 
165
 (pg. 
234
-
40
)
7
Weingart
SN
Hamrick
HE
Tutkus
S
, et al.  . 
Medication safety messages for patients via the web portal: the MedCheck intervention
Int J Med Inform
 , 
2008
, vol. 
77
 (pg. 
161
-
8
)
8
Weingart
SN
Rind
D
Tofias
Z
, et al.  . 
Who uses the patient internet portal? The PatientSite experience
J Am Med Inform Assoc
 , 
2006
, vol. 
13
 (pg. 
91
-
5
)
9
Friedman
SM
Provan
D
Moore
S
, et al.  . 
Errors, near misses and adverse events in the emergency department: what can patients tell us?
CJEM
 , 
2008
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
421
-
7
)
10
Hibbard
JH
Peters
E
Slovic
P
, et al.  . 
Can patients be part of the solution? Views on their role in preventing medical errors
Med Care Res Rev
 , 
2005
, vol. 
62
 (pg. 
601
-
16
)
11
Taylor
BB
Marcantonio
ER
Pagovich
O
, et al.  . 
Do medical inpatients who report poor service quality experience more adverse events and medical errors?
Med Care
 , 
2008
, vol. 
46
 (pg. 
224
-
8
)
12
Weingart
SN
Pagovich
O
Sands
DZ
, et al.  . 
What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse events? Learning from patient-reported incidents
J Gen Intern Med
 , 
2005
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
830
-
6
)
13
Weingart
SN
Price
J
Duncombe
D
, et al.  . 
Patient-reported safety and quality of care in outpatient oncology
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
 , 
2007
, vol. 
33
 (pg. 
83
-
94
)
14
Greenfield
S
Kaplan
S
Ware
JE
Jr.
Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes
Ann Intern Med
 , 
1985
, vol. 
102
 (pg. 
520
-
8
)
15
Hibbard
JH
Cunningham
PJ
How engaged are consumers in their health and health care, and why does it matter?
Res Briefs
 , 
2008
(pg. 
1
-
9
)
16
Hibbard
JH
Mahoney
ER
Stock
R
, et al.  . 
Do increases in patient activation result in improved self-management behaviors?
Health Serv Res
 , 
2007
, vol. 
42
 (pg. 
1443
-
63
)
17
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
20 tips to help prevent medical errors
 
http://www.ahrq.gov/consumer/20tips.htm (31 December 2009, date last accessed)
18
Institute for Safe Medication Practices
Consumers can prevent medication errors
 
http://www.ismp.org/consumers/default.asp (31 December 2009, date last accessed)
19
National Patient Safety Foundation
National agenda for action: patients and families in patient safety
 
http://www.npsf.org/download/AgendaFamilies.pdf (31 December 2009, date last accessed)
20
The Joint Commission
Speak Up
 
http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/SpeakUp/ (31 December 2009, date last accessed)
21
Ashley
ES
Kirk
K
Fowler
VG
Jr.
Patient detection of a drug dispensing error by use of physician-provided drug samples
Pharmacotherapy
 , 
2002
, vol. 
22
 (pg. 
1642
-
3
)
22
Bates
DW
A 40-year-old woman who noticed a medication error
JAMA
 , 
2001
, vol. 
285
 (pg. 
3134
-
40
)
23
Kuzel
AJ
Woolf
SH
Gilchrist
VJ
, et al.  . 
Patient reports of preventable problems and harms in primary health care
Ann Fam Med
 , 
2004
, vol. 
2
 (pg. 
333
-
40
)
24
Unruh
KT
Pratt
W
Patients as actors: the patient's role in detecting, preventing, and recovering from medical errors
Int J Med Inform
 , 
2007
, vol. 
76
 (pg. 
S236
-
44
)
25
Weingart
SN
Toth
M
Eneman
J
, et al.  . 
Lessons from a patient partnership intervention to prevent adverse drug events
Int J Qual Health Care
 , 
2004
, vol. 
16
 (pg. 
499
-
507
)
26
Weissman
JS
Schneider
EC
Weingart
SN
, et al.  . 
Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with medical record review: do patients know something that hospitals do not?
Ann Intern Med
 , 
2008
, vol. 
149
 (pg. 
100
-
8
)
27
Fowler
FJ
Jr.
Epstein
A
Weingart
SN
, et al.  . 
Adverse events during hospitalization: results of a patient survey
Jt Comm J Qual Pt Saf
 , 
2008
, vol. 
34
 (pg. 
583
-
90
)
28
Lopez
L
Weissman
JS
Schneider
EC
, et al.  . 
Disclosure of hospital adverse events and its association with patients’ ratings of the quality of care
Arch Intern Med
 , 
2009
, vol. 
169
 (pg. 
1888
-
94
)
29
Weissman
JS
Rothschild
JM
Bendavid
E
, et al.  . 
Hospital workload and adverse events
Med Care
 , 
2007
, vol. 
45
 (pg. 
448
-
55
)
30
Institute of Medicine
Patient Safety: Achieving a New Standard for Care
 , 
2003
Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press
31
Forster
AJ
Murff
HJ
Peterson
JF
, et al.  . 
The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital
Ann Intern Med
 , 
2003
, vol. 
138
 (pg. 
161
-
7
)
32
Forster
AJ
Murff
HJ
Peterson
JF
, et al.  . 
Adverse drug events occurring following hospital discharge
J Gen Intern Med
 , 
2005
, vol. 
20
 (pg. 
317
-
23
)
33
Entwistle
VA
Watt
IS
Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: the case for a broader conceptual framework
Patient Educ Couns
 , 
2006
, vol. 
63
 (pg. 
268
-
78
)
34
Davis
RE
Koutantji
M
Vincent
CA
How willing are patients to question healthcare staff on issues related to the quality and safety of their healthcare? An exploratory study
Qual Saf Health Care
 , 
2008
, vol. 
17
 (pg. 
90
-
6
)
35
Davis
RE
Jacklin
R
Sevdalis
N
, et al.  . 
Patient involvement in patient safety: what factors influence patient participation and engagement?
Health Expect
 , 
2007
, vol. 
10
 (pg. 
259
-
67
)
36
Weingart
SN
Morway
L
Brouillard
D
, et al.  . 
Rating recommendations for consumers about patient safety: sense, common sense, or nonsense?
Jt Comm J Qual Safe
 , 
2009
, vol. 
35
 (pg. 
206
-
15
)
37
Schwappach
DLB
Engaging patients as vigilant partners in safety
Med Care Res Rev
 , 
2010
, vol. 
67
 (pg. 
119
-
48
)
38
National Patient Safety Foundation
North Carolina Children's Hospital: ‘Family Alert’ system
 
http://www.npsf.org/pr/pressrel/2007-05-4_2.php(31 December 2009, date last accessed)
39
The Joint Commission
National Patient Safety Goals
 
40
Weingart
SN
Simchowitz
B
Kahlert-Eng
T
, et al.  . 
The ‘You CAN’ campaign: teamwork training for patients and families in ambulatory oncology
Jt Comm J Qual Safe
 , 
2009
, vol. 
35
 (pg. 
63
-
71
)
41
Entwistle
VA
Mello
MM
Brennan
TA
Advising patients about patient safety: current initiatives risk shifting responsibility
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf
 , 
2005
, vol. 
31
 (pg. 
483
-
94
)
42
Peat
M
Entwistle
V
Hall
J
, et al.  . 
Scoping review and approach to appraisal of interventions intended to involve patients in patient safety
J Health Serv Res Policy
 , 
2010
, vol. 
15
 (pg. 
17
-
25
)