Table 4 Crude and adjusted ward-specific implementation of patient-centredness strategies

Domain Item	Crude maturity classification		Adjusted* maturity classification
Domain Item	High = 1 Intermediate: OR (95% CI)Low: OR (95% CI)	p Value†	High = 1 Intermediate: OR (95% CI)Low: OR (95% CI)	p Value†
Patients’ rights
Patients give written consent to treatment	1	0.012	1	0.645
	1.6 (1.1 to 2.3)		1.3 (0.8 to 2.2)
	2.1 (1.2 to 3.4)		1.2 (0.6 to 2.6)
Consultation and treatment allow privacy	1	0.231	1	0.175
	1.3 (0.9 to 2.0)		1.5 (1.0 to 2.4)
	1.5 (0.9 to 2.5)		1.5 (0.8 to 2.7)
Patient information and empowerment
Ability to inform foreign patients about their condition and treatment	1	0.001	1	0.030
	1.9 (1.2 to 2.9)		1.7 (1.1 to 2.8)
	2.6 (1.6 to 4.4)		2.2 (1.2 to 3.8)
Patients informed at discharge about follow-up care	1	0.434	1	0.202
	1.5 (0.7 to 3.2)		1.3 (0.5 to 3.1)
	1.0 (0.4 to 2.3)		0.5 (0.2 to 1.5)
Learning from patients
Patients invited to express opinion	1	0.548	1	0.056
	1.1 (0.7 to 1.3)		1.3 (0.8 to 2.1)
	1.3 (0.8 to 2.0)		2.1 (1.1 to 4.0)
Patients informed about the complaints procedure	1	<0.001	1	<0.001
	1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)		1.8 (1.1 to 2.7)
	4.6 (2.7 to 7.8)		3.7 (2.0 to 7.0)
Patient hotel services
Single room upon request	1	0.001	1	<0.001
	1.1 (0.8 to 1.6)		1.1 (0.7 to 3.8)
	2.3 (1.4 to 3.6)		3.2 (1.7 to 3.1)
Choice in timing of meals	1	0.006	1	0.060
	3.2 (1.2 to 8.4)		2.6 (1.0 to 7.1)
	5.1 (1.9 to 13.9)		3.7 (1.3 to 10.8)

*Adjusted for: country (Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Poland, Spain), hospital type (university hospital, general teaching hospital, general non-teaching hospital), hospital ownership (public, private not-for-profit, private for-profit), and ward (acute myocardial infarction, appendicitis).
†p Value for Wald statistic.
OR, odds ratio.

Is patient-centredness in European hospitals related to existing quality improvement strategies? Analysis of a cross-sectional survey (MARQuIS study)