Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Protocol

Instruments to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals: a systematic review protocol

Authors: Michelle Beattie, William Lauder, Iain Atherton, Douglas J Murphy

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Improving and sustaining the quality of care in hospitals is an intractable and persistent challenge. The patients’ experience of the quality of hospital care can provide insightful feedback to enable clinical teams to direct quality improvement efforts in areas where they are most needed. Yet, patient experience is often marginalised in favour of aspects of care that are easier to quantify (for example, waiting time). Attempts to measure patient experience have been hindered by a proliferation of instruments using various outcome measures with varying degrees of psychometric development and testing.

Methods/Design

We will conduct a systematic review and utility critique of instruments used to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals. The databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychological Information (Psych Info) and Web of Knowledge will be searched from inception until end November 2013. Search strategies will include the key words; patient, adult, hospital, secondary care, questionnaires, instruments, health care surveys, experience, satisfaction and patient opinion in various combinations. We will contact experts in the field of measuring patient experience and scrutinise all secondary references. A reviewer will apply an inclusion criteria scale to all titles and abstracts. A second reviewer will apply the inclusion criteria scale to a random 10% selection. Two reviewers will independently evaluate the methodological rigour of the testing of the instruments using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus. Instruments will be critiqued and grouped using van der Vleuten’s utility index. We will present a narrative synthesis on the utility of all instruments and make recommendations for instrument selection in practice.

Discussion

This systematic review of the utility of instruments to measure patient experience of hospital quality care will aid clinicians, managers and policy makers to select an instrument fit for purpose. Importantly, appropriate instrument selection will provide a mechanism for patients’ voices to be heard on the quality of care they receive in hospitals.
PROSPERO registration CRD42013006754.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Institute of Medicine (IOM): Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for 21st century. 2001, Washington DC: National Academy Press Institute of Medicine (IOM): Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for 21st century. 2001, Washington DC: National Academy Press
2.
go back to reference Department of Health: High quality care for all. Gateway Ref. 2008, 10106 Department of Health: High quality care for all. Gateway Ref. 2008, 10106
4.
go back to reference Quality I: Productivity and prevention (QIPP): the NHS atlas of variation in healthcare: reducing unwarranted variation to increase value and improve quality. 2011, United Kingdom: Right Care Quality I: Productivity and prevention (QIPP): the NHS atlas of variation in healthcare: reducing unwarranted variation to increase value and improve quality. 2011, United Kingdom: Right Care
5.
go back to reference Foundation H: Measuring patient experience: No. 18, evidence scan. 2013, England: Health Foundation Foundation H: Measuring patient experience: No. 18, evidence scan. 2013, England: Health Foundation
6.
go back to reference Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D: A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. Br Med J Open. 2013, 3: e001570- Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D: A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. Br Med J Open. 2013, 3: e001570-
7.
go back to reference Sofaer S, Firminger K: Patient perceptions of the quality of health services. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005, 26: 513-559. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.050503.153958.CrossRefPubMed Sofaer S, Firminger K: Patient perceptions of the quality of health services. Annu Rev Public Health. 2005, 26: 513-559. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.25.050503.153958.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Department of Health: A promise to learn – a commitment to act, improving the safety of patients in England. 2013, England: National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England; William Lea publishers Department of Health: A promise to learn – a commitment to act, improving the safety of patients in England. 2013, England: National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England; William Lea publishers
9.
go back to reference Lynn M, McMillen B, Sidani S: Understanding and measuring patients’ assessment of the quality of nursing care. Nurs Res. 2007, 56: 59-166.CrossRef Lynn M, McMillen B, Sidani S: Understanding and measuring patients’ assessment of the quality of nursing care. Nurs Res. 2007, 56: 59-166.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Bannigan K, Watson R: Reliability and validity in a nutshell. J Clin Nurs. 2009, 18: 3237-3243. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02939.x.CrossRefPubMed Bannigan K, Watson R: Reliability and validity in a nutshell. J Clin Nurs. 2009, 18: 3237-3243. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02939.x.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Williams B, Coyle J, Healy D: The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med. 1998, 47: 1351-1359. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00213-5.CrossRefPubMed Williams B, Coyle J, Healy D: The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med. 1998, 47: 1351-1359. 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00213-5.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Parker J, Nester CJ, Long AF, Barrie J: The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2003, 24: 56-60.PubMed Parker J, Nester CJ, Long AF, Barrie J: The problem with measuring patient perceptions of outcome with existing outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2003, 24: 56-60.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Coulter A: Can patients assess the quality of health care?. Br Med J. 2006, 333: 1-2. 10.1136/bmj.333.7557.1.CrossRef Coulter A: Can patients assess the quality of health care?. Br Med J. 2006, 333: 1-2. 10.1136/bmj.333.7557.1.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Byrne K, Sims-Gould J, Frazee K, Martin-Mathews A: “I am satisfied…but”: clients’ and families’ contingent responses about home care. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2011, 30: 161-177. 10.1080/01621424.2011.622242.CrossRefPubMed Byrne K, Sims-Gould J, Frazee K, Martin-Mathews A: “I am satisfied…but”: clients’ and families’ contingent responses about home care. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2011, 30: 161-177. 10.1080/01621424.2011.622242.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L, Thomas H: The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002, 6: 1-6.CrossRefPubMed Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, Hart J, Kimber A, Storey L, Thomas H: The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002, 6: 1-6.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Erikson L: Patient satisfaction: an indicator of nursing care quality. Nurs Manage. 1986, 18: 31-35. Erikson L: Patient satisfaction: an indicator of nursing care quality. Nurs Manage. 1986, 18: 31-35.
17.
go back to reference Williams B: Patient satisfaction: a valid concept?. Soc Sci Med. 1994, 38: 509-516. 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90247-X.CrossRefPubMed Williams B: Patient satisfaction: a valid concept?. Soc Sci Med. 1994, 38: 509-516. 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90247-X.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Sixma H, Kerssens J, Campen C, Peters L: Quality of care from the patients’ perspective: from theoretical concept to new measuring instrument. Health Expect. 1998, 1: 82-95. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1998.00004.x.CrossRefPubMed Sixma H, Kerssens J, Campen C, Peters L: Quality of care from the patients’ perspective: from theoretical concept to new measuring instrument. Health Expect. 1998, 1: 82-95. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.1998.00004.x.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Coulter A, Fitzpatrick R, Cornwell J: The point of care measures of patients’ experience in hospital: purpose, methods and uses. The Kings Fund. 2009, 1-32. Coulter A, Fitzpatrick R, Cornwell J: The point of care measures of patients’ experience in hospital: purpose, methods and uses. The Kings Fund. 2009, 1-32.
20.
go back to reference Donabedian A: Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring, Vol. 1, The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. 1980, Ann Arbour, MI: Health Admin Press Donabedian A: Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring, Vol. 1, The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. 1980, Ann Arbour, MI: Health Admin Press
21.
go back to reference Maxwell RJ: Quality assessment in health. Br Med J. 1984, 288: 1470-1472. 10.1136/bmj.288.6428.1470.CrossRef Maxwell RJ: Quality assessment in health. Br Med J. 1984, 288: 1470-1472. 10.1136/bmj.288.6428.1470.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Beattie M, Shepherd A, Howieson B: Do the Institute of Medicines’ (IOM) dimensions of quality capture the current meaning of quality in health care? – An integrative review. J Res Nurs. 2012, 18: 288-304.CrossRef Beattie M, Shepherd A, Howieson B: Do the Institute of Medicines’ (IOM) dimensions of quality capture the current meaning of quality in health care? – An integrative review. J Res Nurs. 2012, 18: 288-304.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference van der Vleuten C: The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1996, 1: 41-67. 10.1007/BF00596229.CrossRef van der Vleuten C: The assessment of professional competence: developments, research and practical implications. Adv Health Sci Educ. 1996, 1: 41-67. 10.1007/BF00596229.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: Centre for Review and Dissemination. 2009, York: University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: Centre for Review and Dissemination. 2009, York: University of York
25.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62: 1006-1012. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.CrossRefPubMed Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62: 1006-1012. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R: Identification of randomized controlled trails in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening tools. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 1635-1640. 10.1002/sim.1190.CrossRefPubMed Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R: Identification of randomized controlled trails in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening tools. Stat Med. 2002, 21: 1635-1640. 10.1002/sim.1190.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Chow A, Mayer E, Darzi A, Athanasiou T: Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery. 2009, 146: 435-443. 10.1016/j.surg.2009.03.019.CrossRefPubMed Chow A, Mayer E, Darzi A, Athanasiou T: Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery. 2009, 146: 435-443. 10.1016/j.surg.2009.03.019.CrossRefPubMed
28.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: Protocol for the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006, 6: 2-10.1186/1471-2288-6-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Alonso J, Patrick DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: Protocol for the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006, 6: 2-10.1186/1471-2288-6-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Mokkink L, Terwee C, Stratford P, Alonso J, Patrick D, Riphagen I, Knol D, Bouter L, de Vet H: Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009, 18: 313-333. 10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9.CrossRefPubMed Mokkink L, Terwee C, Stratford P, Alonso J, Patrick D, Riphagen I, Knol D, Bouter L, de Vet H: Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009, 18: 313-333. 10.1007/s11136-009-9451-9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol D, Bouter L, de Vet H: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010, 19: 539-549. 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol D, Bouter L, de Vet H: The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010, 19: 539-549. 10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
go back to reference Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: COSMIN checklist manual. 2012, Amsterdam: Institute for Health and Care Research Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: COSMIN checklist manual. 2012, Amsterdam: Institute for Health and Care Research
32.
33.
go back to reference Terwee C, Bet S, Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007, 60: 34-42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed Terwee C, Bet S, Boer M, van der Windt D, Knol D, Dekker J, Bouter L, de Vet H: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007, 60: 34-42. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N: Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. ESRC methods programme. 2006, England: Lancaster University Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, Britten N: Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. ESRC methods programme. 2006, England: Lancaster University
Metadata
Title
Instruments to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals: a systematic review protocol
Authors
Michelle Beattie
William Lauder
Iain Atherton
Douglas J Murphy
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Systematic Reviews 1/2014 Go to the issue