Chris Graham

Influence of patients’ age and sex and the mode of administration on results from the NHS Friends and Family Test of patient experience:

Objective To investigate the impact of demographic factors (patients’ age and sex) and of the mode of administration of a national patient experience questionnaire in England: the NHS Friends and Family Test. Methods Secondary analysis of April–August 2013 data collected using a mixed mode approach from 38,998 inpatients and 29,610 emergency department attendees at 429 wards or units in 32 hospitals. Multilevel models were applied with responses from wards nested within hospitals and trusts. Age, sex and mode of administration were entered as main effects. Results There were consistent differences in response for patients and emergency department attendees related to their age and sex. Women gave less positive ratings than men, whilst the likelihood of positive responses increased with age except among the oldest age group (75 years and above). As regards mode of administration, online responses were significantly less positive than postcard responses: the mean differences in score were 22.0 points for inpatients (95% confidence interval 27.3 to 16.7) and 18.0 points for emergency department attendees (29.0 to 7.0). Telephone responses were significantly more positive than postcard responses, with a mean difference of 9.2 (1.6–16.8) in the emergency department setting. Conclusions Data from the Friends and Family Test are vulnerable to bias from demographic factors and from the mode of administration. Comparisons between organisations should be avoided. Scores may be useful at a local level where the test is implemented consistently and patients’ demographic characteristics remain stable. Improving the utility of the Friends and Family Test nationally requires a standardised method for administration and adjustment of results for demographic characteristics.

People with limiting long-term conditions report poorer experiences and more problems with hospital care

BackgroundLong-term conditions have a significant impact on individuals, their families, and the health service. As people with these conditions represent a high proportion of hospital admissions, investigating their experiences of inpatient care has become an important area of investigation. We conducted a secondary analysis of the NHS adult inpatient survey for England to compare the hospital experiences of three groups of patients: those without long-term conditions, those with a single long-term condition, and those with multiple long-term conditions. We were particularly interested in the extent to which these patients received self-management support from hospital staff, so we developed a brief summary tool drawn from salient questions in the survey to aid the comparison.MethodsAnalysis of data from the 2011 national adult inpatient survey (n = 65,134) to compare the experiences of three groups of patients: those with no limiting long-term conditions (No-LLTC), those with one limiting long-term condition (S-LLTC), and those with two or more limiting long-term conditions (M-LLTC). The main outcome measure was patients’ self-reports of their experience of inpatient care, including staff-patient interactions, information provision, involvement in decisions and support for self-care and overall ratings of care. A short form scale, the Oxford Patient Involvement and Experience scale (OxPIE) was developed from the adult inpatient survey and used to compare the groups using logistic regression.ResultsThere were significant differences between the No-LLTC group in comparison to both the S-LLTC and M-LLTC groups. Patients with limiting long-term conditions reported significantly worse hospital experiences than those without, as measured by OxPIE: S-LLTC odds ratio = 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.48; M-LLTC odds ratio = 1.64, 95% CI 1.19 – 2.26. Responses to a single global rating question were more positive but not strongly correlated with OxPIE.ConclusionsPatients with LLTCs were more critical of their inpatient care than those with no LLTCs. Those with more than one long-term condition reported worse experiences than those with a single limiting condition. Simple rating questions may not be sufficiently sensitive to reflect important aspects of patients’ experience.

Do some trusts deliver a consistently better experience for patients? An analysis of patient experience across acute care surveys in English NHS trusts

Introduction Data were used from inpatient, outpatient and accident and emergency surveys in acute trusts in England to examine consistency in patient-reported experience across services, and factors associated with systematic variations in performance. Methods Standardised mean scores for six domains of patient experience were constructed for each survey for 145 non-specialist acute trusts. Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to investigate whether and how trust performance clusters. Multilevel regression analysis was used to determine trust characteristics associated with performance. Results Cluster analysis identified three groups: trusts that performed consistently above (30 trusts) or below (six trusts) average, and those with mixed performance. All the poor performing trusts were in London, none were foundation trusts or teaching hospitals, and they had the highest mean deprivation score and the lowest proportion of white inpatients and response rates. Foundation and teaching status, and the proportion of white inpatients, were positively associated with performance; deprivation and response rates showed less consistent positive associations. No regional effects were apparent after adjusting for independent variables. Conclusion The results have significant implications for quality improvement in the NHS. The finding that some NHS providers consistently perform better than others suggests that there are system-wide determinants of patient experience and the potential for learning from innovators. However, there is room for improvement overall. Given the large samples of these surveys, the messages could also have relevance for healthcare systems elsewhere.

The accident and emergency department questionnaire: a measure for patients’ experiences in the accident and emergency department—reply

With this letter we respond to the comments of Chance et al on our recent publication ‘Patient Experience in the Accident and Emergency Department’. We applied three different methods of grouping and summarised the items on the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department questionnaire presented to patients. The best score reliability was provided by the Principal Components Analysis. Chance et al acknowledge the importance of patients’ feedback but questioned whether this measure of patients’ experiences is valuable and valid for comparisons of the quality of care services, and whether selection bias affected the results. The purpose of our research was to examine alternative ways of obtaining a reliable composite, but we do not negate the important information from separate questions. Single questionnaire items are less reliable than well-constructed composites,1 but are able …

Developing a User Reported Measure of Care Co-ordination

Introduction: Older people with chronic conditions often receive poor care because of the fragmented way in which their services are delivered from multiple sources. Providers have limited tools to directly capture the views of older people about their experiences of care co-ordination. The study aim was to design and test a survey tool to capture the experiences of older people with chronic conditions regarding how well their health and (where applicable) social care was co-ordinated. Method: To inform the questionnaire development, we reviewed the literature on existing surveys and care co-ordination theory, and on the health status of our target audience (people aged 65 or over with one or more chronic conditions and not in hospital or residential institutions). We also consulted stakeholders including those working in health and social care services and those with expertise in the subject area. We grouped questions around experiences of care in three dimensions: care in the home environment, planned transitions in care and unplanned situations. We also designed the questions so they could be mapped onto three recognised dimensions of continuity of care – management continuity, information continuity and relational continuity – as articulated in the international literature. The questionnaire was tested using focus groups and cognitive interviews and piloted with people aged 65 and over with at least one chronic condition, using a postal survey. We used service user records in 32 general practices located in four areas and a population database held by one local authority in England as the sampling frame. Results: The pilot achieved an overall response rate of 27.6% (n = 562 responses). Ninety five percent of respondents answered 30 or more of the 46 questions and three respondents answered fewer than 10 questions. Twenty four items achieved one or more positive correlations greater than 0.5 with other survey items and four instances of positive associations greater than 0.7 were found. Discussion/conclusion: The growing focus on care co-ordination demonstrates the need for a tool that can capture the experiences of patients accessing care across organisational and professional boundaries, to inform the improvement of care co-ordination activities from a patient perspective. Early results suggest that our tool may have a contribution to make in these areas. However, more work is required to test the efficacy of the tool on a larger scale and in different settings, and to find ways of improving response rates.

Strategies and challenges for monitoring patient experience at the local level

Patient experience is widely regarded as a key element of healthcare quality. In England, this recognition is formalised in the National Health Service’s (NHS) defined view of quality (Darzi, 2008), and a broad range of national and local activities are undertaken to gather patients’ views. This includes patients’ anecdotal feedback from the growing popularity of outlets like Patient Opinion, as well as quantitative experience data from the National Patient Survey Programme which reaches hundreds of thousands of patients across acute, mental health, emergency sectors. This focus on patient feedback is testament to how much importance the NHS places on patients’ views. But whilst patient experience information is widely used, it has not always resulted in the improvements to patient care that were the initial motive for establishing the measures, and some commentators have argued that there is a critical gap in the connection between patient experience data and actual quality improvement locally (Coulter et al., 2014). Results from a study conducted by Picker Institute Europe and the University of Oxford provide new insight into the way patient experience collections are organised and used by health and social care providers (Fitzpatrick et al., 2015). Drawing on evidence from a range of case studies, the research shows that local activities around measuring patient experience are substantial, but that there is nevertheless considerable potential to improve the co-ordination of these activities and to help translate them into improved services.

The Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire: item reduction and scoring using inpatient and accident and emergency data in England

Purpose The Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire (RAC-Q) is an electronic instrument which has been developed to assess staff’s interactions with patients when delivering relational care to inpatients and those accessing accident and emergency (A&E) services. The aim of this study was to reduce the number of questionnaire items and explore scoring methods for “not applicable” response options. Patients and methods Participants (n=3928) were inpatients or A&E attendees across six participating hospital trusts in England during 2015–2016. The instrument, consisting of 20 questionnaire items, was administered by trained hospital volunteers over a period of 10 months. Items were subjected to exploratory factor analysis to confirm unidimensionality, and the number of items was reduced using a range of a priori psychometric criteria. Two alternative approaches to scoring were undertaken, one treated “not applicable” responses as missing data, while the second adopted a problem score approach where “not applicable” was considered “no problem with care.” Results Two short-form RAC-Qs with alternative scoring options were identified. The first (the RAC-Q-12) contained 12 items, while the second scoring option (the RAC-Q-14) contained 14 items. Scores from both short forms correlated highly with the full 20-item parent form score (RAC-Q-12, r=0.93 and RAC-Q-14, f=0.92), displayed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s α: RAC-Q-12=0.92 and RAC-Q-14=0.89) and had high levels of agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=0.97 for both scales). Conclusion The RAC-Q is designed to offer near-real-time feedback on staff’s interactions with patients when delivering relational care. The new short-form RAC-Qs and their respective method of scoring are reflective of scores derived using the full 20-item parent form. The new short-form RAC-Qs may be incorporated into inpatient surveys to enable the comparison of ward or hospital performance. Using either the RAC-Q-12 or the RAC-Q-14 offers a method to reduce missing data and response fatigue.

People’s experiences of hospital care on the weekend: secondary analysis of data from two national patient surveys

Objective To determine whether patients treated in hospital on the weekend report different experiences of care compared with those treated on weekdays. Design This is a secondary analysis of the 2014 National Health Service (NHS) adult inpatient survey and accident and emergency (A&E) department surveys. Differences were tested using independent samples t-tests and multiple regression, adjusting for patient age group, sex, ethnicity, proxy response, NHS trust, route of admission (for the inpatient survey) and destination on discharge (for the A&E survey). Setting The inpatient survey included 154 NHS hospital trusts providing overnight care; the A&E survey 142 trusts with major emergency departments. Participants Three cohorts were analysed: patients attending A&E, admitted to hospital and discharged from hospital. From the inpatient survey’s 59 083 responses, 10 382 were admitted and 11 542 discharged on weekends or public holidays. The A&E survey received 39 320 responses, including 11 542 (29.4%) who attended on the weekend or on public holidays. Weekday and weekend attendees’ response rates were similar once demographic characteristics were accounted for. Main outcome measures For the A&E survey, six composite dimensions covered waiting times, doctors and nurse, care and treatment, cleanliness, information on discharge, and overall experiences. For the inpatient survey, three questions covered admissions and two dimensions covered information about discharge and about medicines. Results People attending A&E on weekends were significantly more favourable about ‘doctors and nurses’ and ‘care and treatment’. Inpatients admitted via A&E on a weekend were more positive about the information given to them in A&E than others. Other dimensions showed no differences between people treated on weekdays or on weekends. Conclusions Patients attending emergency departments or admitted to or discharged from an inpatient episode on weekends and public holidays report similar or more positive experiences of care to other patients after adjusting for patient characteristics.