Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Future Healthcare Journal

  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Future Healthcare Journal

futurehosp Logo
  • FHJ Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About FHJ
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

What do people hospitalised with COVID-19 think about their care? Results of a satisfaction survey during the first wave of COVID-19 in Liverpool

Meng-San Wu, Rebecca Watson, Fatima Hayat, Libuse Ratcliffe, Mike BJ Beadsworth, Mark McKenna, Daniel Corney, Catherine Plum, Jamie-Leigh Macfarlane, Maisoon Matareed, Sundas Butt, Sandipika Gupta, Paul Hine, Sylviane Defres and Tom Wingfield
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/fhj.2020-0260
Future Healthc J March 2021
Meng-San Wu
ALiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
Roles: specialty trainee in infectious diseases and medical virology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Watson
BLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
Roles: core medical trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fatima Hayat
CLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
Roles: locum registrar in infectious diseases
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Libuse Ratcliffe
DLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
Roles: consultant physician in infectious diseases and general internal medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mike BJ Beadsworth
DLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
Roles: consultant physician in infectious diseases and general internal medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark McKenna
ELiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
Roles: patient and family experience lead
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Corney
FUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Roles: foundation trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Catherine Plum
FUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Roles: foundation trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jamie-Leigh Macfarlane
FUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Roles: foundation trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Maisoon Matareed
FUniversity of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
Roles: foundation trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sundas Butt
GGeorge Eliot Hospital NHS Trust, Nuneaton, UK
Roles: foundation trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandipika Gupta
HInstitute of Cardiovascular Science, London, UK
Roles: foundation trainee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Hine
ILiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
Roles: consultant physician in infectious diseases and general internal medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sylviane Defres
JLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK and Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK
Roles: senior clinical lecturer and consultant physician in infectious diseases and general internal medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tom Wingfield
KLiverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Roles: senior clinical lecturer and honorary consultant physician in infectious diseases and general internal medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tom.wingfield@lstmed.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

ABSTRACT

Despite huge advances in vaccines, testing and treatments for COVID-19, there is negligible evidence on the perceptions of people hospitalised with COVID-19 about the care they received.

To address this, we developed a satisfaction survey for people with COVID-19 admitted to our hospital during the first COVID-19 wave in Liverpool. Of those invited, 98/160 (61%) responded, of whom 94/98 (96%) completed the survey. Respondents rated overall care highly (mean 4.7/5) and 89/94 (95%) reported that they would recommend the hospital to friends and/or family. Most respondents felt safe on the ward (94%), with privacy maintained (93%) and pain well managed (90%). Fewer than two-thirds (63%) of respondents considered themselves adequately consulted regarding medications and side effects. Sleep and food/drink quality were also highlighted as areas for improvement.

To overcome the issues raised, we generated a ‘COVID-19 practice pointers’ poster within an integrated educational bundle on COVID-19 wards.

The impact of the bundle on perceptions of people hospitalised with COVID-19 will be evaluated in people hospitalised with COVID-19 in Liverpool in 2021. Whether hospitalised for COVID-19 or other conditions, our survey results are a timely reminder of the importance of involving patients in shaping the care that they receive.

KEYWORDS
  • COVID-19
  • healthcare quality and provision
  • coronavirus
  • quality improvement project
  • patient satisfaction and feedback

Introduction

Approximately 15% of people with COVID-19, the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, require hospital care.1 In the UK, more than 408,000 people with COVID-19 have been hospitalised.2

Despite huge advances in the understanding of COVID-19,3 the perspectives of people hospitalised with COVID-19 have received scant attention.4 This is concerning given limited NHS capacity, restrictions on hospital visiting and associated in-hospital morbidity and mortality.

We conducted a quality improvement project (QIP) involving a satisfaction survey of people hospitalised with COVID-19 in Liverpool. Here, we describe the implementation methods used so that they could be replicated by other units or hospitals, review the survey responses, and recommend interventions to enhance patient-centred care.

Methods

Design

A cross-sectional survey.

Inclusion criteria

People admitted to Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (LUHFT) with virologically confirmed and/or clinically suspected COVID-19 (eg consistent radiological findings) were eligible to participate. Virological confirmation was by PCR on upper (eg nasopharyngeal swab) and/or lower (eg sputum) respiratory tract samples.

Exclusion criteria

People with COVID-19 who were receiving non-invasive or mechanical ventilation at the time of enrolment, lacked capacity, or did not give verbal consent to participate were excluded.

Survey

A pre-existing satisfaction survey was combined with a ‘friends and family’ question to form an adapted COVID-19 patient satisfaction survey (Fig 1). The survey questions covered topics including safety, privacy, medications (including analgesia), sleep and communication. There were also free-text questions about positive experiences and areas for improvement.

Fig 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 1.

COVID-19 satisfaction survey.

The survey was reviewed by the ‘patient and family experience’ and ‘communications’ departments at LUHFT, and certified as learning disability friendly. A patient survey app facilitated tablet-based data collection, favoured for infection prevention and control (IPC), but a paper survey was offered as an alternative. A standard operating procedure (SOP) was created that gave implementation details in keeping with infection prevention principles (see supplementary material S1).

Recruitment

Recruitment was intended to be systematic with surveys conducted pre-discharge. However, due to heavy clinical commitments and rapid turnover, some participants completed surveys post-discharge. Potential participants were approached by trained students and doctors pre-discharge or contacted by letter or telephone post-discharge. Families, carers and ward staff were permitted to assist completion where required, including by phone or video call.

Approvals

The QIP was first reviewed by the infectious diseases multidisciplinary team and subsequently approved by the local clinical effectiveness department.

Period of implementation

15 March – 15 June 2020.

Analysis

Anonymised responses were transcribed to a password-protected server. Quantitative analyses summarised mean feedback scores and qualitative analysis categorised free-text responses in each domain of care identified by respondents, including safety, wellbeing, food/drink, personal hygiene and communication. This was an opportunistic QIP and no specific sample size was required.

Results

A total of 98/160 (61%) responses were received, of which 72/98 (77%) were completed post-discharge. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 94/98 (96%) of respondents who provided complete survey responses are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Sociodemographic and clinical details of people hospitalised with COVID-19

COVID-19 was confirmed in 87/94 (93%) by positive viral PCR and the remainder met clinical criteria for suspected COVID-19 Median respondent age was 59 years and 49/94 (52%) were male. One-third (31/94, 33%) were ex-smokers or smokers. Over one-third (32/84, 38%) of participants were obese and 10/94 (11%) were black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME). Most participants (73/94, 78%) had one or more comorbidities, with chronic lung disease (38%), hypertension (31%), diabetes (19%) and vasculopathy (16%) predominating.

The average rating of the quality of care received was 4.7/5 and the majority of respondents (89/94, 95%) reported that they would recommend LUHFT to their friends or family (Fig 2). More than 4 in 5 respondents reported that they felt safe during their stay, they were kept informed of discharge plans, they were involved in decision making relating to their care, their privacy was maintained and their pain was managed appropriately. Being able to share worries and fears (78%), sleep quality (77%) and information about medications and side effects (63%) received lower satisfaction scores (Fig 2).

Fig 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 2.

Quantitative feedback from people hospitalised with COVID-19 about their care (n=94).

Free-text responses suggested that medical and nursing care was highly praised, whereas quality of food and drink, and sleep environment were areas for improvement (Table 2). Bilateral communication issues were raised, with one hearing-impaired respondent reporting struggles to communicate when face masks were worn. Other respondents mentioned inadequate or inappropriately timed communication relating to their care (Table 2).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Free-text responses of people with COVID-19 (n=94) on aspects of care that were positive and those that could be improved

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic has distorted the healthcare system and eroded processes aimed at improving patient care. Scant attention has been paid to patient involvement in shaping services and holistic healthcare provision, including suspension of routine patient feedback surveys and engagement activities.4,5,6

To our knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed report of the perceptions of people hospitalised with COVID-19 on the care they received in a UK hospital. The QIP methods we describe, including details of the SOP and survey itself, are low-cost, pragmatic and open access so that they can be replicated by other units or hospitals.

Our survey showed that people with COVID-19 rated the quality of care they received highly, particularly from medical and nursing staff. The majority of respondents reported that they would recommend LUHFT to friends and family. These results are in line with other settings7 and are encouraging, given COVID-19 pressures on the NHS. The results are also in keeping with previous evidence that positive patient experiences are strongly influenced by confidence in care providers.5 The key area for improvement recommended by respondents was communication, especially related to medications and their side effects.

Regular, open, bilateral communication about medications and side effects – including novel therapeutics being evaluated by ongoing randomised controlled trials – is highly relevant to all patients in hospital, especially underserved groups, and not only those with COVID-19. Importantly, the survey revealed that communication issues were further compounded by mask-wearing.

Universal mask-wearing among healthcare workers has positive impacts on reducing nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission in both staff and patients.8 However, there are negative effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including depersonalisation and fear.9 Older patients in particular may experience heightened anxiety or low mood in COVID-19 wards due to isolation, suboptimal communication or direct COVID-19 neurological effects.10

Patients have been shown to perceive that doctors with face masks have a lower degree of empathy than those without.10 Moreover, people hospitalised with COVID-19, especially if hearing impaired, may have difficulties understanding healthcare workers and communicating their own needs. This should be taken into consideration and mask-windowing adaptations, increased speaking volume and visual aids should be used when needed. This is vitally important, especially for vulnerable patients, and pertinent given ongoing recruitment into studies trialling novel therapeutic agents.

Other key areas for improvement identified by respondents were poor food, drink and sleep quality – areas highly relevant to all hospitalised people, regardless of illness.

Respondents were generally complementary about domestic and cooking staff. However, locally, kitchen staff were also affected by sickness and understaffing, and supply chain issues meant that, at some times, menu choice was more constricted than normal.

Overnight noise levels mean that poor sleep quality is a persistent issue in hospital. Being admitted with COVID-19 is stressful, especially given media coverage and hospital closure to visitors. Sleep is vital for good health and wellbeing, and good sleep quality can contribute to reducing anxiety.11 Potential solutions to poor sleep quality identified include noise monitoring, staff reminders to reduce noise during ‘protected sleeping time’ and single-occupancy rooms. However, these solutions may be hard to achieve when hospitals are working at or over capacity.

In response to the feedback findings, we generated a poster of ‘COVID-19 practice pointers’ on COVID-19 wards (Fig 3). The posters, which are A2 size with an easy-to-read font size, have been placed in visible locations on COVID-19 wards during the second wave of COVID-19 in Liverpool. The poster can also be used as a hospital-wide screen saver to increase staff awareness.

Fig 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig 3.

Pilot version of poster detailing holistic COVID-19 practice pointers.

The posters are part of an integrated bundle and complementary QIP for multidisciplinary teams caring for people with COVID-19. The complementary QIP has been to implement and assess feedback from the multidisciplinary team on use of a checklist based on the mnemonic ‘OSCAR’. This includes key elements of COVID care: Oxygen, Steroids, Coagulation, Antibiotics/antivirals, and Research treatments. It is designed to improve documentation and prescribing, and prompts explanation of components of COVID-19 care to the patient. Overall, the bundle consists of COVID ward induction sessions including introduction of the OSCAR checklist, lanyards and posters with the checklist, the COVID-19 practice pointer poster and a patient information leaflet.

This QIP has several limitations. It was pragmatic, non-randomised and had multiple potential sources of bias. These included lack of sequential participant recruitment, ad hoc survey implementation, variable times of survey completion (eg pre- and post-discharge) and exclusion criteria that may have led to under-representation of underserved groups or those most severely affected by COVID-19. We overcame some of these issues by supporting participants to complete the survey and involving carers and/or family where possible. However, this may have led to further bias. Moreover, survey respondents’ ability to recall their experiences when severely ill may have been impaired (even if they made a good recovery) and gratitude towards staff for care received may have influenced their response. We partially addressed these limitations by allowing sufficient time to complete the survey with appropriate support and clearly explaining that the aim of the survey was to elucidate both the successes and shortcomings of patient care in order to improve our service in the future. Our participants’ social and clinical demographics appear similar to other published cohorts from the UK,12 but it should be noted that, likely due to Liverpool’s background ethnodemography, only 11% of participants were BAME in our cohort. Future analysis of COVID-19 feedback survey data will aim to evaluate equity of healthcare provision by comparing responses of BAME patients with other patient groups.

Conclusion

Our survey of people hospitalised with COVID-19 showed that care quality during admission was rated and recommended highly. However, the survey also revealed areas for improvement in holistic healthcare provision including communication, especially with relation to medications and discharge planning, and sleep and food quality. To improve care in 2021, we are implementing the ‘COVID-19 practice pointers’ poster within an integrated educational bundle on COVID-19 wards within LUHFT. We hope to be able to scale up this bundle for future evaluation of its impact on the care of people hospitalised with COVID-19 at LUHFT and, potentially, beyond.

Supplementary material

Additional supplementary material may be found in the online version of this article at www.rcpjournals.org/FHJ:

S1 – COVID-19 inpatient satisfaction survey SOP.

S2 – Full sociodemographic and clinical details of people hospitalised with COVID-19 (n=94).

Acknowledgements

We thank all the respondents who kindly gave their consent and participated in this study and the multidisciplinary teams on wards 3X, 3Y, 9X and 9Y for supporting this project. We are grateful to Kathryn Barnes and the reprographics team at LUHFT. We also thank Claire Duffy and Andrea Kearley for support with data collection and the departments of respiratory medicine (especially Dr Ayesha Kumar and Dr Fred Frost), clinical effectiveness (especially Helen Vormawah), patient and family experience, and communications of LUHFT for their invaluable support and collaboration.

Funding

TW is supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust, UK (209075/Z/17/Z); the Medical Research Council, Department for International Development, and Wellcome Trust (Joint Global Health Trials, MR/V004832/1), the Academy of Medical Sciences, UK; and the Swedish Health Research Council, Sweden.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2021. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Lauer SA
    , Grantz KH, Bi Q, et al. The incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from publicly reported confirmed cases: estimation and application. Ann Intern Med 2020;172:577–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Public Health England and NHSX
    . Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK. https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/ [Accessed 8 February 2021].
  3. ↵
    1. Gandhi RT
    , Lynch JB, del Rio C. Mild or moderate COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2020;383:1757–66.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Wu MS
    , Hayat F, Ratcliffe L, Beadsworth MBJ, Defres S, Wingfield T. What do people hospitalised with covid-19 think about the care they received? BMJ 2020;370:m3496.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Millstein JH
    , Kindt S. Reimagining the patient experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. NEJM Catal Innov Care Deliv 2020; doi:.
  6. ↵
    The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Feedback during COVID-19 Outbreak. www.leedsth.nhs.uk/patients-visitors/patient-and-visitor-information/patient-experience/the-friends-and-family-test/covid-19/ [Accessed 14 November 2020].
  7. ↵
    1. Traiki TAB
    , AlShammari SA, AlAli MN, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes: A retrospective and cross sectional study. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2020;58:14–9.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Wang X
    , Ferro EG, Zhou G, Hashimoto D, Bhatt DL. Association between universal masking in a health care system and SARS-CoV-2 positivity among health care workers. JAMA 2020;324:703–4.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Wong CKM
    , Yip BHK, Mercer S, et al. Effect of facemasks on empathy and relational continuity: a randomised controlled trial in primary care. BMC Fam Pract 2013;14:200.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Robb CE
    , de Jager CA, Ahmadi-abhari S, et al. Associations of social isolation with anxiety and depression during the early COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of older adults in London, UK. Front Psychiatry 2020;11:591120.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Martin C
    . Sleep is the best medicine. BMJ 2007;335:1216.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Docherty AB
    , Harrison EM, Green CA, et al. Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ 2020;369:m1985.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
What do people hospitalised with COVID-19 think about their care? Results of a satisfaction survey during the first wave of COVID-19 in Liverpool
Meng-San Wu, Rebecca Watson, Fatima Hayat, Libuse Ratcliffe, Mike BJ Beadsworth, Mark McKenna, Daniel Corney, Catherine Plum, Jamie-Leigh Macfarlane, Maisoon Matareed, Sundas Butt, Sandipika Gupta, Paul Hine, Sylviane Defres, Tom Wingfield
Future Healthc J Mar 2021, 8 (1) e70-e75; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.2020-0260

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
What do people hospitalised with COVID-19 think about their care? Results of a satisfaction survey during the first wave of COVID-19 in Liverpool
Meng-San Wu, Rebecca Watson, Fatima Hayat, Libuse Ratcliffe, Mike BJ Beadsworth, Mark McKenna, Daniel Corney, Catherine Plum, Jamie-Leigh Macfarlane, Maisoon Matareed, Sundas Butt, Sandipika Gupta, Paul Hine, Sylviane Defres, Tom Wingfield
Future Healthc J Mar 2021, 8 (1) e70-e75; DOI: 10.7861/fhj.2020-0260
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • Introduction
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Supplementary material
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recovering from COVID-19: lessons learnt from an intensive secondary care follow-up service
  • UCL MotionInput: Touchless computing interactions in clinical training, radiology and operating theatres
  • Overcoming adversity: Building a remote interdisciplinary neurorehabilitation service during the COVID-19 pandemic
Show more COVID-19 rapid report

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home

Other Services

  • Advertising
futurehosp Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians