Introduction: Effective communication to develop a shared understanding of patient/caregiver (P/C) expectations is critical during emergency department (ED) encounters. However, there is limited research examining the use of communication tools of P/C expectations to improve communication in the ED. The objective of this study was to examine satisfaction with a patient expectations questionnaire, known as the PrEPP tool, and its impact on communication and management of patients in the ED. Methods: The PrEPP tool collected P/C expectations over 3 phases of the study. In phase1, the PrEPP tool was distributed to all P/Cs (CTAS score of 2 to 5) in four EDs in Nova Scotia. In phase 2 the PrEPP tool was refined to a 5-item questionnaire. In phase 3 the PrEPP tool was re-implemented over a six-month period. Follow-up surveys were distributed to P/Cs via email (phase 1, 3) and HCPs on iPads in the ED (phase 3) to determine the impact of the tool on communication and management of patients. Entries were compiled on a REDCap database and descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses related to satisfaction.The PrEPP tool collected P/C expectations over 3 phases of the study. In phase1, the PrEPP tool was distributed to all P/Cs (CTAS score of 2 to 5) in four EDs in Nova Scotia. In phase 2 the PrEPP tool was refined to a 5-item questionnaire. In phase 3 the PrEPP tool was re-implemented over a six-month period. Follow-up surveys were distributed to P/Cs via email (phase 1, 3) and HCPs on iPads in the ED (phase 3) to determine the impact of the tool on communication and management of patients. Entries were compiled on a REDCap database and descriptive statistics were used to analyze responses related to satisfaction. Results: In Phase 1, 11418 PrEPP tools and 147 surveys (29% response rate) were collected from January-June 2016. The majority of P/Cs found the PrEPP questionnaire easy to complete (95.9%) and felt HCPs met their expectations (87.1%). In Phase 3, 951 P/C (31.1% response rate) and 128 HCP surveys were collected. Of P/C respondents 45.9% felt PrEPP helped to communicate expectations, while 49.7% said that they would like to use it on future ED visits. The majority of P/C respondents (75.4%) indicated their expectations were met during their visit to the ED. Of those whose expectations were not met, 69% felt their expectations were not discussed. The majority of HCP respondents (90.4%) indicated they used the PrEPP tool at least sometimes. Also, 78.4% said it influenced patient communication and 42% indicated the tool influenced management of patients at least sometimes. Conclusion: Obtaining expectations early in the patient encounter may provide opportunities for improved communication in the ED. P/Cs found the PrEPP tool easy to use to communicate their expectations and HCPs felt it influenced communication and management of patients in the ED. Further qualitative thematic analysis is needed to explore how the PrEPP tool impacted ED visits.

Introduction: Effective communication to develop a shared understanding of patient expectations is critical to a positive encounter in the Emergency Department (ED). However, there is limited research examining Patient/Caregiver (P/C ) expectations in the ED and what factors lead to P/C presentation. This study aims to address this gap by answering the following questions: 1) What are common P/C reported factors affecting ED presentation? 2) What are common P/C expectations of an ED visit? 3) How do P/C expectations vary based on ED site or factors affecting presentation in the ED? Methods: The Preparing Emergency Patients and Providers (PrEPP) tool was designed to collect P/C expectations, worries, perceived causes of symptoms, and factors affecting presentation from a convenience sample of patient visits to the emergency department (ED). The PrEPP tool was provided to all P/Cs with CTAS 2-5 when they registered at one of 4 EDs in the Halifax area from January to June 2016. Completed tools were collected in a REDCap database where qualitative data was coded into categories (i.e. presenting illness, injury). Descriptive and chi-squared statistical analyses were performed. Results: In total, 11,418 PrEPP tools were collected; representing 12% of the total ED visits to the 4 ED sites during the study period. The main factors affecting ED presentation were: self-referral 68%, family/friends 20%, telehealth 8%, unable to see their GP 7%, GP referral 6%, or walk-in-clinic 5%. P/Cs main causes of worry were: presenting illness 19%, injury 15%, or pain 14%. The main expectations for the ED visit were to get a: physician's opinion 73%, x-ray 40%, or blood test 20%. Most P/Cs indicated they did not expect medication during (63%), or after (66%), their ED visit. There were significant differences in P/C expectations between adult and pediatric EDs (χ2 = 720.949, df = 14, P = 0.000) and those P/Cs unable or able to access primary care prior to ED presentation (χ2 = 38.980, df = 1, P = 0.000). The rate of expecting a physician's opinion at the pediatric ED was higher than the adult ED (77.6% vs 70.9%), while lower for expecting CT/MRIs (4.6% vs 11.4%). P/Cs who were unable to access primary care prior to ED presentation expected services which were available at primary care at a higher rate than those who accessed primary care (58.5% vs 36.7%). Conclusion: Our findings identify some of the factors that influence P/C's decision to present to the ED and their expectations of the ED visit.

Aims – A narrative review of studies on the information needs of psychiatric patients, the knowledge of their diagnosis and treatment expectations. Methods – A literature review, limited to studies between 1980 to 2003, was carried out using Medline and Psychlnfo databases. Results – Sixty five studies of interest were identified. Less than half of the psychiatric patients know their diagnosis and patients affected by schizophrenia are the least informed. Notions about aetiology and treatment are patchy, and the concept of ‘multifactorial cause’ seems unknown. Little knowledge emerged about drugs and side effects, expecially in the long term. Patients want to be informed, involved in decisions and their treatment programme. They feel that their psychiatrists are more interested in pharmacological aspects than in their personal problems. Conclusions – A better quality of communication, the involvement of patients in decision processes and meeting patients' information needs is necessary to improve therapeutic relationships, to encourage greater compliance with treatment programs and to reduce the stigma of psychiatric illness.

Declaration of Interest: none of the three authors has had any interest or received any form of support, including that from drug companies and honoraria for lectures and consultancies, potentially in conflict with this scientific work.

within the health care sector there is a renewed emphasis on the satisfaction of patients and their involvement in its' evaluation. there is also some evidence to suggest that the expectations of patients play a fundamental part in forming this satisfaction. this study aimed to establish the expectations of bone scan patients who attended a nuclear medicine department and consequently measured their satisfaction after the visit. a possible link between the two was assessed. a questionnaire survey was undertaken to assess the patients' expectations prior to their visit and subsequently their satisfaction after their scan. the questionnaires included comment sections to encourage the addition of free text to the questionnaires by the patients. a total of 181 patients were included in the analysis which provided a range of expectations, with most patients expressing high importance to those expectations. generally satisfaction was found to be high. statistical analysis of the results showed a significant positive correlation between the expectations of patients and their satisfaction. the expectations of patients may therefore be targeted by health professionals in their attempts to provide the care patients need and deserve.