Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review

Beattie, Michelle; Murphy, Douglas J.; Atherton, Iain; Lauder, William

doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0

Systematic Reviews

Table 5 Results of additional aspects of utility

From: Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review

	HCAHPS		QPP		QPPS		PPE-15		NHSIP		SIPE		HKIEQ		PEQ		NORPEQ		I-PAHC		PPQ
	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R	F	R
Cost efficiency
1. What are the number of observations (patients, raters, times) needed to reach the required level of reliability for the purpose of the instrument?	≥300 [20]	Poor	Not reported	Poor	Not reported	Poor	330 per group [24]	Poor	Not Reported	Poor	Variable but >100	Poor	300–500 [45]	Poor	Not specified	Poor	Not specified	Poor	≥230 [53]	Poor	Not specified	Poor
2. How long does an assessment take to complete?	8 min [8]	Good	30 min [28]	Good	≤15 min	Excellent	12 min [42]	Excellent	20 min (estimate)	Good	20 min [46]	Good	25 min [59]	Good	<30 min (estimate)	Good	>15 min (estimate)	Excellent	15 min [53]	Excellent	<30 min (estimate)	Good
3. What are the administrative costs of completing the assessment?	V large numbers and expertise [8]	Poor	Considerable [28]	Fair	Brief and easy scoring [27]	Excellent	Large no. and standardised data	Fair	Large no. and standardised	Fair	V large numbers and expertise	Poor	V large numbers and expertise	Poor	Considerable	Fair	Brief and simple scoring	Good	Interviewers required	Fair	Interviewer required [41]	Fair
4. What is the cost to complete a reliable sample?	Extensive	Poor	Considerable	Fair	Minimal	Good	Considerable	Fair	Extensive	Poor	Extensive	Poor	Extensive	Poor	Considerable	Fair	Moderate	Good	Moderate	Good	Considerable	Fair
Overall Rating	POOR		FAIR		GOOD		FAIR		POOR		POOR		POOR		FAIR		GOOD		GOOD		FAIR
Acceptability
1. Is there evidence of subjects understanding of the instrument/assessment?	Yes [29,48]	Excellent	Yes [55]	Excellent	Yes [8]	Excellent	Yes [42]	Excellent	Yes [47]	Excellent	Yes [45]	Excellent	Yes [22]	Excellent	Yes [39]	Excellent	Yes [37]	Excellent	Yes [53]	Excellent	Yes [41]	Excellent
2. How many assessments are not completed?	25 % miss RR 47 %	Good	13 % miss RR 68 % [55]	Good	25 % miss RR 79 % [55]	Good	29 % miss RR 68 % [42]	Good	No info RR 49 % [47]	Good	No info RR 50 % [13]	Good	21 % miss RR 49 % [22]	Good	>10 % mis RR 53 % [39]	Excellent	42.5 %mis RR 48 % [37] 85 %	Excellent	High No RR 95 % [53]	Good	0 % miss RR 85 % [41]	Excellent
3. Has the instrument/assessment been tested in an appropriate context?	Yes [26]	Excellent	Tested in simulation [55]	Fair	Yes [55]	Good	Yes [42]	Excellent	Yes [47]	Excellent	Yes [45]	Excellent	Yes [22]	Excellent	Yes [39]	Excellent	Yes	Excellent	Yes	Excellent	Yes	Excellent
Overall Rating	Good		Fair		Good		Good		Good		Good		Good		Excellent		Excellent		Good		Excellent
Educational impact
1. Is there evidence of the instrument being used for its intended purpose? (i.e. if aim is to provide hospital ranking for patient selection, is there evidence that the results are influencing patient choice?)	Evidence of purpose [20]	Excellent	Discussion of purpose but no evidence [55]	Fair	Discussion of purpose but no evidence [27]	Fair	Explanatory use for national comparison	Good	Clear evidence of purpose [47]	Excellent	Explanatory use for national comparison [45]	Good	Explanatory use for national benchmarking [22]	Good	Clear evidence of purpose [39]	Excellent	Explanatory use described [37]	Good	Explanatory use described [53]	Good	Explanatory use described [41]	Good
2. Is the scoring system easily translated or available in an easy to use format?	Easy scoring	Excellent	Easy scoring	Excellent	Easy scoring	Excellent	Easily scored	Excellent	Statistical knowledge	Fair	Easy colour coding	Excellent	Statistical expertise	Fair	Not explained	Poor	Easy scoring	Excellent	Easy scoring	Excellent	Easy scoring	Excellent
3. Can the results be readily used for action where necessary?	Available but not at unit/team level	Good	Results actionable at local level	Excellent	Results actionable at local level	Excellent	Adjustments needed (Jenkinson comparison)	Fair	Expertise required to enable local action	Fair	Results at hospital level	Good	Results at hospital level	Good	No information	Poor	Readily available	Excellent	Readily available	Excellent	Readily available	Excellent
Overall Rating	Good		Fair		Fair		Fair		Fair		Good		Fair		Poor		Good		Good		Good

F findings, R ratings

Back to article page

ISSN: 2046-4053

Contact us

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com