Patient Experience With Vascular Access Management Informs Satisfaction With Overall Hospitalization Experience.

The study reports patient perception, not measured quality of care, so it cannot show whether care was actually safe, effective, or delivered as recommended. Public and private institutions could not be compared fairly: all Singapore patients were in public institutions, and most Filipino patients were in private institutions. Patients were surveyed at their bedside, and responses may have been influenced by comorbidities, including pain. The Singapore sample was smaller and only included public institutions because of recruitment regulations. The paper gives conflicting eligibility statements: it says patients had to be older than 21 years and have 2 or more PIVC insertions, but elsewhere says patients older than 21 years or with a hospital stay longer than 1 day were excluded. The study used models to rank importance and predict satisfaction, but it did not test an intervention.

Writing and editorial assistance were provided by people contracted by The Economist Intelligence Unit and by Peloton Advantage, LLC, an OPEN Health company funded by Becton Dickinson. Two authors, Drs Giri and Hoerauf, are employees of Becton Dickinson. Dr Prasad and Mr Chew reported no conflicts.

Do not read the higher Singapore scores or the link between vascular access satisfaction and overall hospital satisfaction as proof that a specific practice change will improve hospital satisfaction. The study measured patient perception, not delivered quality, and it did not test an intervention.