Title:Linking patient satisfaction with nursing care: The case of care rationing - a correlational study

Transcription

1 Author's response to reviews Title:Linking patient satisfaction with nursing care: The case of care rationing - a correlational study Authors: Evridiki Papastavrou (e.papastavrou@cut.ac.cy) Panayiota Andreou (panayiota.andreou@cut.ac.cy) Haritini Tsangari (haritini@cytanet.com.cy) Anastasios Merkouris (anastasios.merkouris@cut.ac.cy) Version:3Date:8 July 2014 Author's response to reviews: see over

2 July 8 th 2014 Dear Editor, I am enclosing a revision of our manuscript titled, Linking patient satisfaction with nursing care: The case of care rationing-a correlational study. We would like to thank the reviewers and yourself for taking the time to evaluate the above manuscript. We are grateful for the constructive comments and suggestions, which helped further clarify and improve the content of the paper. We were happy to see that the reviewers recognized the importance of the findings of this study. We have now addressed all the recommendations and issues raised. The response and the revisions are noted below in italic font; the changes were added in the revised version of the manuscript. We look forward to receiving your response. Sincerely, Evridiki Papastavrou, PhD, MSc, RN Assistant Professor, School of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing Cyprus University of Technology e.papastavrou@cut.ac.cy

3 Editorial requirements: 1. Please remove cover and author s details from additional files. 2. Kindly include title page and tables in manuscript pdf Reviewer 1: 1. Wherever there are more than one references in brackets they should be placed all in one bracket 2. In page 5 [18][19]) the parethesis should not be placed there The parenthesis has been removed 3. The same comment as above in page 6 [37][38][39]) The parenthesis has been removed 4. Wherever you mention an author et al you should place a dot after al. 5. In page 7 where references are [41] [40][11] they should be placed in the right order [11,40,41]. 6. The references are not according to journal s recommendations. The references have been checked and changed when necessary to conform to journal s recommendations. Reviewer 2: 1. Background section, paragraph 2, lines 11/12, sentence commencing The effect of the work environment on rationing... the phrase..supporting that antecedents of missed care exist.. is unclear and potentially confusing. I recommend some rephrasing to clarify the point being made.

4 Thank you for bringing this to our attention; the above extract has been changed to: The effect of the work environment on rationing is also stressed in the Missed Care Model [7]. The model argues that the factors underlying missed care are linked to the context of the care environment, they are external to nurses and create a need to decide what care will be provided. 2. Statistical analysis section, paragraph 2 (final paragraph in this section). line 4 from end of section:... BERNCA score were recorded into 6 levels... The authors need to explain why and perhaps more importantly how this was done, in order for the reader to understand how the levels were generated. From my perspective this is the most substantive revision required to the manuscript. Without an understanding of the decisions made on this issue, it is difficult to really determine the actual relevance / robustness of the defined thresholds. Thank you for this important point. The particular sentence has been changed to: In order to compare the findings of the current study with past literature on the thresholds at which rationing began to affect these outcomes negative, BERNCA scores were recorded into 6 levels: 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, more than 2.5. The levels were based on relevant past literature (please see Schubert et al for a similar approach). Discretionary Revisions (minor issues not for publication) 1. Review of the literature, paragraph 1, line 4 - I recommend changing the word supporting to suggesting 2. Review of the literature, paragraph 7 (the 3 lines immediately above the heading Purpose), sentence commencing However, both studies investigated satisfaction... This point could be stated more clearly. This has been changed to the following: However, both studies assessed satisfaction based on one question, a common practice in several studies. Nonetheless, a single item question does not allow exploring the different perspectives that comprise patient satisfaction related to nursing care. 3. Results section, paragraph two (immediately beneath insertion order for table 1) I recommend adjusting the text of Aim 1 to read as follows: Aim 1: Relationship between patient satisfaction with rationing of nursing care and work environment Results section, paragraph 4, line 3 the phrase...slightly less frequently than

5 rarely. This seems a very counter-intuitive way to express this point. Rephrasing may aid understanding. The phrase has been changed to: indicating that when asked how often they were unable to perform specific tasks, nurses reported this occurred almost rarely.