IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Hospitalisation process seen by patients and health care professionals

Listed author(s):
  • Rentsch, Denis
  • Luthy, Christophe
  • Perneger, Thomas V.
  • Allaz, Anne-Françoise
Registered author(s):

    Appropriate use of hospitalisation is an important concern in most countries. Previous studies have relied on professional opinion regarding the appropriateness of hospital stays, neglecting the patients' point of view. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the patients' point of view about the appropriateness of their hospital stay and to evaluate agreement with health care providers' opinions. It was undertaken in a medical rehabilitation division of the University Hospitals of Geneva in Switzerland. Patients reported their opinion on the justification of their hospital stay on the day of the interview, the reason why they judged their stay to be appropriate, and the place where they should be if not. The patients' health care providers answered the same questions. Two-hundred and fifty-four patients contributed to the evaluation of 314 days of hospitalisation. Only 20 hospital days (6%) were considered unjustified by patients, compared to 63 (20%) by health care providers (p

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 57 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 3 (August)
    Pages: 571-576

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:3:p:571-576
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:57:y:2003:i:3:p:571-576. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.