We believe that education using this framework in the medical school and postgraduate curricula would significantly improve recognition of dying patients. This would serve to stimulate earlier conversations, more shared decision-making, and ultimately better outcomes in palliative care and patient experience.
Incivility is one of the most prevalent forms of interpersonal mistreatment. Although studies have examined the full range of experiences of incivility against nurses and other hospital personnel, very few studies examined the forms of incivility that patients face in a hospital.

To empirically investigate the range of uncivil experiences targeted against patients. Our study furthers our understanding of the phenomenology of incivility from the patients' perspective.

We used interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze participant's (n = 173) experiences of incivility in a hospital.

We identified 6 major themes of incivility, namely Insensitivity, Identity Stigma, Gaslighting, Infantilization, Poor Communication, and Ignored.

The findings highlight that instances of incivility are present in almost all aspects of the patient experience and take on unique forms, given the patient's role in the hospital. Implications for health consequences are discussed.
The findings highlight that instances of incivility are present in almost all aspects of the patient experience and take on unique forms, given the patient's role in the hospital. Implications for health consequences are discussed.
Hospital patient satisfaction has been a salient policy concern. We examined rurality's impact on patient satisfaction measures.

We examined patients (age 50 and up) from 65 rural and urban hospitals in Massachusetts, using the merged data from 2007 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, State Inpatient Database and Survey of Patients' Hospital Experiences, utilizing Hierarchical binary logistic regression analyses to examine the rural disparities in patient satisfaction measures.

Relative to the urban location, rurality reduced the likelihood of cleanliness of environment (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [0.63-0.70]); but increased the likelihood of staff responsiveness and quietness. Compared to Caucasian counterparts, Hispanic patients were less likely to reside in a quiet hospital. Compared to other payments, Medicare or Medicaid coverage each reduced the likelihood of staff responsiveness and cleanliness. Compared to other diagnoses, depressive or psychosis disorders predicted smalth diagnoses in depressive and psychosis disorders also called upon further studies in special care needs.
Empathy is a key component of a therapeutic relationship. Perceived empathy and compassion are associated with patient satisfaction, reduced symptoms, and adherence to treatment.

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of the validated Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perception of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE) and the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) tools.

Eighty-four patients completed the JSPPPE and the CARE measure. With Pearson's correlation and exploratory factor analysis, we measured the underlying construct. Flooring and ceiling effects were measured. Multivariable models were created to assess factors associated with both measures.

The high interquestionnaire correlation (rho = 0.70) and factor loading (0.77) confirm that the JSPPPE and CARE measure the same construct. The CARE (55%) had a higher ceiling effect than JSPPPE (18%). Both JSPPPE (partial

= 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.64) and CARE (partial

= 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.69) accounted for similar amounts of variation in satisfaction with the orthopedic surgeon.

Perceived empathy accounts for a substantial amount of the variation in satisfaction. The JSPPPE measures the same construct as CARE with a lower ceiling effect. Because both questionnaires have considerable ceiling effects, a new questionnaire might help to study factors associated with a more empathetic experience.
Perceived empathy accounts for a substantial amount of the variation in satisfaction. The JSPPPE measures the same construct as CARE with a lower ceiling effect. Because both questionnaires have considerable ceiling effects, a new questionnaire might help to study factors associated with a more empathetic experience.
Not all emotional support messages consist purely of positive statements. Some emotional support messages received by cancer patients simultaneously communicate statements of caring but also negative statements, such as criticisms of patients' actions.

This study tests if a negative statement occurring within an emotional support message affects cancer patients' perceptions of the effectiveness of the
emotional support message as well as the perceived competence of the supporter communicating the emotional support message.

Cancer patients watched video recordings of emotional support messages and subsequently provided ratings on message effectiveness and supporter competence. Some emotional support messages included negative statements, whereas other messages did not.

Messages that included a negative statement were rated lower on message effectiveness than messages without negative statements. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/Rolipram.html Cancer patients rated supporters communicating messages with a negative statement as having significantly less competence than those who did not communicate a negative statement.

A single negative statement occurring within an emotional support message may result in cancer patients viewing the emotional support as less effective and the supporter as less competent.
A single negative statement occurring within an emotional support message may result in cancer patients viewing the emotional support as less effective and the supporter as less competent.The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patients' demographics, the quality of physician-patient communication, care coordination, and the overall satisfaction rating in primary health-care centers (PHCs). A cross-sectional study was conducted using a patient experience tool. A convenience sample of 157 patients visiting PHCs were retrieved from 10 out of the 13 Saudi regions. A total of 81% of the overall ratings could be attributed to the predictors included in the model. The highest predictor of the overall rating in this model was physicians answering of patient questions, followed by time spent with the physician, type of PHC, and the abilities of the physician to listen carefully, explain things clearly, and show respect. The weakest predictors were follow-up by the health-care provider and physician's knowledge of the patient's medical history. Our findings suggest that to improve the overall patient experience and the quality of care at PHCs requires extra attention to physician-patient communication.

We believe that education using this framework in the medical school and postgraduate curricula would significantly improve recognition of dying patients. This would serve to stimulate earlier conversations, more shared decision-making, and ultimately better outcomes in palliative care and patient experience.
Incivility is one of the most prevalent forms of interpersonal mistreatment. Although studies have examined the full range of experiences of incivility against nurses and other hospital personnel, very few studies examined the forms of incivility that patients face in a hospital.

To empirically investigate the range of uncivil experiences targeted against patients. Our study furthers our understanding of the phenomenology of incivility from the patients' perspective.

We used interpretative phenomenological analysis to analyze participant's (n = 173) experiences of incivility in a hospital.

We identified 6 major themes of incivility, namely Insensitivity, Identity Stigma, Gaslighting, Infantilization, Poor Communication, and Ignored.

The findings highlight that instances of incivility are present in almost all aspects of the patient experience and take on unique forms, given the patient's role in the hospital. Implications for health consequences are discussed.
The findings highlight that instances of incivility are present in almost all aspects of the patient experience and take on unique forms, given the patient's role in the hospital. Implications for health consequences are discussed.
Hospital patient satisfaction has been a salient policy concern. We examined rurality's impact on patient satisfaction measures.

We examined patients (age 50 and up) from 65 rural and urban hospitals in Massachusetts, using the merged data from 2007 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, State Inpatient Database and Survey of Patients' Hospital Experiences, utilizing Hierarchical binary logistic regression analyses to examine the rural disparities in patient satisfaction measures.

Relative to the urban location, rurality reduced the likelihood of cleanliness of environment (odds ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval [0.63-0.70]); but increased the likelihood of staff responsiveness and quietness. Compared to Caucasian counterparts, Hispanic patients were less likely to reside in a quiet hospital. #link# Compared to other payments, Medicare or Medicaid coverage each reduced the likelihood of staff responsiveness and cleanliness. Compared to other diagnoses, depressive or psychosis disorders predicted smalth diagnoses in depressive and psychosis disorders also called upon further studies in special care needs.
Empathy is a key component of a therapeutic relationship. Perceived empathy and compassion are associated with patient satisfaction, reduced symptoms, and adherence to treatment.

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of the validated Jefferson Scale of Patient's Perception of Physician Empathy (JSPPPE) and the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) tools.

Eighty-four patients completed the JSPPPE and the CARE measure. With Pearson's correlation and exploratory factor analysis, we measured the underlying construct. Flooring and ceiling effects were measured. Multivariable models were created to assess factors associated with both measures.

The high interquestionnaire correlation (rho = 0.70) and factor loading (0.77) confirm that the JSPPPE and CARE measure the same construct. The CARE (55%) had a higher ceiling effect than JSPPPE (18%). Both JSPPPE (partial

= 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.64) and CARE (partial

= 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.69) accounted for similar amounts of variation in satisfaction with the orthopedic surgeon.

Perceived empathy accounts for a substantial amount of the variation in satisfaction. The JSPPPE measures the same construct as CARE with a lower ceiling effect. Because both questionnaires have considerable ceiling effects, a new questionnaire might help to study factors associated with a more empathetic experience.
Perceived empathy accounts for a substantial amount of the variation in satisfaction. The JSPPPE measures the same construct as CARE with a lower ceiling effect. Because both questionnaires have considerable ceiling effects, a new questionnaire might help to study factors associated with a more empathetic experience.
Not all emotional support messages consist purely of positive statements. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/Raltitrexed.html received by cancer patients simultaneously communicate statements of caring but also negative statements, such as criticisms of patients' actions.

This study tests if a negative statement occurring within an emotional support message affects cancer patients' perceptions of the effectiveness of the
emotional support message as well as the perceived competence of the supporter communicating the emotional support message.

Cancer patients watched video recordings of emotional support messages and subsequently provided ratings on message effectiveness and supporter competence. Some emotional support messages included negative statements, whereas other messages did not.

Messages that included a negative statement were rated lower on message effectiveness than messages without negative statements. Cancer patients rated supporters communicating messages with a negative statement as having significantly less competence than those who did not communicate a negative statement.

A single negative statement occurring within an emotional support message may result in cancer patients viewing the emotional support as less effective and the supporter as less competent.
A single negative statement occurring within an emotional support message may result in cancer patients viewing the emotional support as less effective and the supporter as less competent.The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between patients' demographics, the quality of physician-patient communication, care coordination, and the overall satisfaction rating in primary health-care centers (PHCs). A cross-sectional study was conducted using a patient experience tool. A convenience sample of 157 patients visiting PHCs were retrieved from 10 out of the 13 Saudi regions. A total of 81% of the overall ratings could be attributed to the predictors included in the model. The highest predictor of the overall rating in this model was physicians answering of patient questions, followed by time spent with the physician, type of PHC, and the abilities of the physician to listen carefully, explain things clearly, and show respect. The weakest predictors were follow-up by the health-care provider and physician's knowledge of the patient's medical history. Our findings suggest that to improve the overall patient experience and the quality of care at PHCs requires extra attention to physician-patient communication.

More and More peer review confirms the real science - the gaslighting has run out of gas.

https://anandamide.substack.com/p/the-most-comprehesive-study-on-vax

***
Reposted
****
Scientists uncover Pfizer “Hot Lots” that injured specific population groups at higher rates
****
https://www.vaccineinjurynews.com/2024-10-01-scientists-uncover-pfizer-hot-lots-injured-specific-populations.html
****
A new peer-reviewed study by scientists from Children’s Health Defense, in cooperation with researchers from Denmark and the Czech Republic, has revealed significant disparities in adverse event rates associated with specific batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Published in Science, Public Health Policy and the Law, the research highlights serious concerns about vaccine manufacturing practices, including the lack of inspection for finished vials and the absence of quality control checks for product preservation and storage. Scientists from CHD, including Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer, and Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist, led the research.

Analysis of 156 vaccine lots finds higher rate of vaccine injury among certain lots
The study analyzed 156 different vaccine lots distributed from December 2020 to April 2022. The researchers tracked where the vaccine was manufactured and where it was distributed, and traced the lots to vaccine injuries reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).

The data was not readily available and had to be obtained via Freedom of Information Act request, which was acquired by the Informed Consent Action Network. The analysis uncovered that early batches, particularly those sent to hospitals and government agencies, had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs).

Of the 977,542 adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 455,820 (46.7%) were linked to the Pfizer vaccine. While only 29% of these reports included lot numbers, researchers were able to match 290,835 serious events to specific batches.

The analysis categorized the adverse events in three categories: non-serious, serious, and those that involved death. A non-serious adverse event includes mild allergic reactions (e.g., rash, itching), temporary discomfort or pain at the injection site, mild fever or headache, and fatigue or malaise. A non-serious adverse event indicates that unnecessary harm has been done to the individual’s body, but the issue resolved or wasn’t life threatening. In the analysis, a total of 78% of the SAEs were non-serious.

A serious adverse event includes hospitalization, life-threatening situations, or disabilities. These typically include conditions like anaphylaxis, thrombosis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, severe respiratory distress, seizures, stroke and myocarditis, to name a few. In the analysis, 20% of all adverse events were serious, and 2% involved the death of the recipient.

Researchers condemn the manufacturing process and lack of quality control for mRNA vaccines
The researchers condemned the manufacturing process for the mRNA vaccines, saying it should have never been approved in the first place. The researchers warned that there was “extremely high” variability among vaccine lots, suggesting that there were inadequate manufacturing controls and oversight. The results of the study were corroborated by similar studies from Denmark and the Czech Republic, which also reported higher adverse event rates associated with certain batches, particularly early in the vaccination rollout.

The study notes that the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System is not comprehensive, and typically captures less than 1% of adverse events. This means that magnitudes of vaccine injury data were never even recorded. This could be the result of propaganda dominating the medical system and the politicization surrounding the administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. Doctors were told that vaccine injuries are extremely rare and are the result of “antivaxxers” spreading “vaccine misinformation.” Individuals were often pressured not to report a vaccine injury by their doctor. Many patients were shamed into believing that the vaccine injury was caused by something else. In these cases of medical gaslighting, the data goes unreported, as people suffer.

Contrary to statistical expectations, states with larger populations did not show higher rates of severe injuries. Instead, states like South Dakota, Tennessee and Kentucky reported disproportionately higher rates. Were certain states politically targeted and provided with a greater quantity of “hot lots” and dirty vaccine batches? What kind of contaminants were concentrated in these particular “hot lots?” Was Pfizer intentionally conducting several smaller experiments with various vaccine batches within the the grander experiment of COVID-19 vaccination? Many questions remain unanswered.
*****

****
Note. Some Links locking editor display up, use GoDuck for your reference.
*******
Medical Disclaimers apply. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Seek the assistance of health care professionals for any conditions. We are not doctors.
***Medical Disclaimers apply:: """"Forwarding, not a line by line endorsement of all items.""""" **
******

GASLIGHTING: Mainstream media claims Trump supporters pose a bigger threat of election-related violence than the radical left

https://newstarget.com/2024-11-18-mainstream-media-gaslights-trump-supporters-election-violence.html