Primary and secondary outcomes
−6.57
REGRESSION
Patients with sensitive topics reported lower overall satisfaction (87.7±14.6 vs 90.2±12.1, p=0.006; adjusted difference −2.5, 95% CI −4.28 to −0.72; p=0.006). Sensitive topics were associated with less subjective knowledge (77.8±22 vs 81.2±19, p=0.013; adjusted difference −3.86, 95% CI −6.57 to −1.15; p=0.005) as well as objective knowledge (68.7±25.8 vs 72.6±24.9, p=0.021; adjusted difference −3.83, 95% CI −7.18 to −0.48; p=0.025) (Association of sensitive topics with various outcomesSignificant p-values were marked in bold.*Adjusted for study centre, intervention. All differences calculated with linear regression models for continuous data. ORs were calculated with logistic regression models.min, minutes; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale.Duration of outside the room discussions, bedside discussions and debriefings was longer in patients with sensitive topics. Mean (±SD) duration (min) of ward round per patient was 14.5±5.6 versus 11.3±4.6, p<0.001; adjusted difference 3.13, 95% CI 2.47 to 3.79; p<0.001. Compared with patients without sensitive topics, patients with sensitive topics felt more uncomfortable (4.5±15.6 vs 8.2±21.6, p=0.005; adjusted difference 3.2, 95% CI 0.64 to 5.76; p=0.014) and unsettled (4.4±15.9 vs 7.2±19.9, p=0.033; adjusted difference 2.84, 95% CI 0.22 to 5.45; p=0.034) during the ward round, and discussions causing them to worry (6.6±25.7 vs 11.7±24.8, p=0.003; adjusted difference 4.82, 95% CI 1.4 to 8.24; p=0.006). They also felt less confident with the physician team (91.9±14.4 vs 89.5±16.8, p=0.02; adjusted difference −2.52, 95% CI −4.65 to −0.4; p=0.02), whereas there were no significant differences in confidence with the nursing team (Patients with sensitive topics perceived physicians less compassionate and also felt less respected, taken seriously, and more uneasy (