The association between demographic factors, user reported experiences and user satisfaction: results from three casualty clinics in Norway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>User reported experiences and satisfaction are increasingly used as basis for quality indicators in the health sector. However, there is limited understanding of factors associated with user reported experiences and satisfaction with casualty clinics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A random sample of 542 patients that had contacted any of three casualty clinics from mid April to mid May 2008 was mailed a questionnaire. A reminder was sent to non-respondents after six weeks. Descriptive statistics for four user reported experiences scales and 20 single items are presented. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess associations between background variables and user reported experiences, and between user reported experiences and user satisfaction.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>225 (41.5%) patients, carers and guardians returned a completed questionnaire. Users reported most positive experiences with the doctor services and the nursing services at the casualty clinics; on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best possible experience the doctor scale was 82 and the nursing scale 81. Users reported least positive experiences with the organization of the casualty clinic, with a scale score of 65. Self perceived health was associated with user satisfaction, while self perceived health and age were associated with user reported experiences with organization of the clinics. A range of user reported experience domains were related to user satisfaction, after controlling for socio-demographic variables, including experiences with doctor services at the clinics, organization of the clinics, information and self perceived incorrect treatment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Users report positive experiences with the three casualty clinics, with organization as the aspect with largest improvement potential. The importance of age and health status for users' experiences and satisfaction with casualty clinics was shown, but a range of user reported experiences with the clinics were the most important predictors for user satisfaction.</p

The Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire (GS-PEQ): identification of core items from a survey in Norway

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Questionnaires are commonly used to collect patient, or user, experiences with health care encounters; however, their adaption to specific target groups limits comparison between groups. We present the construction of a generic questionnaire (maximum of ten questions) for user evaluation across a range of health care services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Based on previous testing of six group-specific questionnaires, we first constructed a generic questionnaire with 23 items related to user experiences. All questions included a "not applicable" response option, as well as a follow-up question about the item's importance. Nine user groups from one health trust were surveyed. Seven groups received questionnaires by mail and two by personal distribution. Selection of core questions was based on three criteria: applicability (proportion "not applicable"), importance (mean scores on follow-up questions), and comprehensiveness (content coverage, maximum two items per dimension).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>1324 questionnaires were returned providing subsample sizes ranging from 52 to 323. Ten questions were excluded because the proportion of "not applicable" responses exceeded 20% in at least one user group. The number of remaining items was reduced to ten by applying the two other criteria. The final short questionnaire included items on outcome (2), clinician services (2), user involvement (2), incorrect treatment (1), information (1), organisation (1), and accessibility (1).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire (GS-PEQ) is a short, generic set of questions on user experiences with specialist health care that covers important topics for a range of groups. It can be used alone or with other instruments in quality assessment or in research. The psychometric properties and the relevance of the GS-PEQ in other health care settings and countries need further evaluation.</p

It takes patience and persistence to get negative feedback about patients’ experiences: a secondary analysis of national inpatient survey data

Background: Patient experience surveys are increasingly used to gain information about the quality of healthcare. This paper investigates whether patients who respond before and after reminders to a large national survey of inpatient experience differ in systematic ways in how they evaluate the care they received. Methods: The English national inpatient survey of 2009 obtained data from just under 70,000 patients. We used ordinal logistic regression to analyse their evaluations of the quality of their care in relation to whether or not they had received a reminder before they responded. Results: 33% of patients responded after the first questionnaire, a further 9% after the first reminder, and a further 10% after the second reminder. Evaluations were less positive among people who responded only after a reminder and lower still among those who needed a second reminder. Conclusions: Quality improvement efforts depend on having accurate data and negative evaluations of care received in healthcare settings are particularly valuable. This study shows that there is a relationship between the time taken to respond and patients’ evaluations of the care they received, with early responders being more likely to give positive evaluations. This suggests that bias towards positive evaluations could be introduced if the time allowed for patients to respond is truncated or if reminders are omitted

Family members' experience with in-hospital health care after severe traumatic brain injury : a national multicentre study.

Background Family member’s experience and satisfaction of health care in the acute care and in-patient rehabilitation are important indicators of the quality of health care services provided to patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The objective was to assess family members’ experience of the health care provided in-hospital to patients with severe TBI, to relate experiences to family member and patient demographics, patients’ function and rehabilitation pathways. Methods Prospective national multicentre study of 122 family members of patients with severe TBI. The family experience of care questionnaire in severe traumatic brain injury (FECQ-TBI) was applied. Independent sample t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to compare the means between 2 or more groups. Paired samples t-tests were used to investigate differences between experience in the acute and rehabilitation phases. Results Best family members` experience were found regarding information during the acute phase, poorest scores were related to discharge. A significantly better care experience was reported in the acute phase compared with the rehabilitation phase (p &lt; 0.05). Worst family members` experience was related to information about consequences of the injury. Patient’s dependency level (p &lt; 0.05) and transferral to non-specialized rehabilitation were related to a worse family members` experience (p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions This study underscores the need of better information to family members of patients with severe TBI in the rehabilitation as well as the discharge phase. The results may be important to improve the services provided to family members and individuals with severe TBI

Addressing preference heterogeneity in public health policy by combining Cluster Analysis and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Proof of Method.

The use of subgroups based on biological-clinical and socio-demographic variables to deal with population heterogeneity is well-established in public policy. The use of subgroups based on preferences is rare, except when religion based, and controversial. If it were decided to treat subgroup preferences as valid determinants of public policy, a transparent analytical procedure is needed. In this proof of method study we show how public preferences could be incorporated into policy decisions in a way that respects both the multi-criterial nature of those decisions, and the heterogeneity of the population in relation to the importance assigned to relevant criteria. It involves combining Cluster Analysis (CA), to generate the subgroup sets of preferences, with Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), to provide the policy framework into which the clustered preferences are entered. We employ three techniques of CA to demonstrate that not only do different techniques produce different clusters, but that choosing among techniques (as well as developing the MCDA structure) is an important task to be undertaken in implementing the approach outlined in any specific policy context. Data for the illustrative, not substantive, application are from a Randomized Controlled Trial of online decision aids for Australian men aged 40-69 years considering Prostate-specific Antigen testing for prostate cancer. We show that such analyses can provide policy-makers with insights into the criterion-specific needs of different subgroups. Implementing CA and MCDA in combination to assist in the development of policies on important health and community issues such as drug coverage, reimbursement, and screening programs, poses major challenges -conceptual, methodological, ethical-political, and practical - but most are exposed by the techniques, not created by them

The Universal Patient Centredness Questionnaire: scaling approaches to reduce positive skew

Oyvind Bjertnaes, Hilde Hestad Iversen, Andrew M Garratt Unit for Patient-Reported Quality, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway Purpose: Surveys of patients&rsquo; experiences typically show results that are indicative of positive experiences. Unbalanced response scales have reduced positive skew for responses to items within the Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). The objective of this study was to compare the unbalanced response scale with another unbalanced approach to scaling to assess whether the positive skew might be further reduced. Patients and methods: The UPC-Q was included in a patient experience survey conducted at the ward level at six hospitals in Norway in 2015. The postal survey included two reminders to nonrespondents. For patients in the first month of inclusion, UPC-Q items had standard scaling: poor, fairly good, good, very good, and excellent. For patients in the second month, the scaling was more positive: poor, good, very good, exceptionally good, and excellent. The effect of scaling on UPC-Q scores was tested with independent samples t-tests and multilevel linear regression analysis, the latter controlling for the hierarchical structure of data and known predictors of patient-reported experiences. Results: The response rate was 54.6% (n=4,970). Significantly lower scores were found for all items of the more positively worded scale: UPC-Q total score difference was 7.9 (P&lt;0.001), on a scale from 0 to 100 where 100 is the best possible score. Differences between the four items of the UPC-Q ranged from 7.1 (P&lt;0.001) to 10.4 (P&lt;0.001). Multivariate multilevel regression analysis confirmed the difference between the response groups, after controlling for other background variables; UPC-Q total score difference estimate was 8.3 (P&lt;0.001). Conclusion: The more positively worded scaling significantly lowered the mean scores, potentially increasing the sensitivity of the UPC-Q to identify differences over time and between providers. However, none of the groups exhibited large positive skew and ceiling effects, implying that such effects might not be a big measurement problem for either scaling format. We recommend using the standard scaling in surveys producing external indicators for inter-provider comparisons. The more positively worded scaling has greater relevance for local measurement work where the results of patient experience surveys have shown large positive skew, and intra-provider comparison is the primary goal. Keywords: patient centeredness, patient satisfaction, questionnaire, surve

Patient experiences with interdisciplinary treatment for substance dependence: an assessment of quality indicators based on two national surveys in Norway

Mona Haugum,1,2 Hilde Hestad Iversen,1 Jon Helgeland,1 Anne Karin Lindahl,2,3 Oyvind Bjertnaes11Division of Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; 2Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; 3Division of Surgery, Akershus University Hospital, Lorenskog, NorwayPurpose: The quality of health care is often measured using quality indicators, which can be utilized to compare the performance of health-care providers. Conducting comparisons in a meaningful and fair way requires the quality indicators to be adjusted for patient characteristics and other individual-level factors. The aims of the study were to develop and test a case-mix adjustment model for quality indicators based on patient-experience surveys among inpatients receiving interdisciplinary treatment for substance dependence, and to establish whether the quality indicators discriminate between health care providers.Patients and methods: Data were collected through two national surveys involving inpatients receiving residential treatment in Norway in 2013 and 2014. The same questionnaire was used in both surveys, and comprised three patient-experience scales. The scales are reported as national quality indicators, and associations between the scales and patient characteristics were tested through multilevel modeling to establish a case-mix model. The intraclass correlation coefficient was computed to assess the amount of variation at the hospital-trust level.Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient for the patient-reported experience scales varied from 2.3% for &ldquo;treatment and personnel&rdquo; to 8.1% for &ldquo;milieu&rdquo;. Multivariate multilevel regression analyses showed that alcohol reported as the most frequently used substance, gender and age were significantly associated with two of the three scales. The length of stay at the institution, pressure to be admitted for treatment, and self-perceived health were significantly related to all three scales. Explained variance at the individual level was approximately 7% for all three scales.Conclusion: This study identified several important case-mix variables for the patient-based quality indicators and systematic variations at the hospital-trust level. Future research should assess the association between patient-based quality indicators and other quality indicators, and the predictive validity of patient-experience indicators based on on-site measurements.Keywords: quality of health care, health care quality indicator, case-mix adjustment, patient satisfaction, survey &nbsp