Kirsten Danielsen

Patient experiences in relation to respondent and health service delivery characteristics: A survey of 26,938 patients attending 62 hospitals throughout Norway

Aims: To assess the association between patient experiences, aspects of healthcare delivery, and patient characteristics for adult somatic inpatients attending hospitals throughout Norway. Methods: The Patient Experiences Questionnaire (PEQ) was mailed to 26,938 patients attending inpatient clinics at 62 Norwegian hospitals during 2002 and 2003 within a six-week period. Reminders were mailed at four weeks. Scores for the PEQ were regressed on whether the patient felt that he/she had received incorrect treatment, had spent the night in a corridor bed, had been an emergency or routine admission, his/her number of previous admissions, hospital teaching status, hospital size and location, health status, and sociodemographic variables. Results: A total of 13,700 (50.9%) patients responded. Patients who felt that they had received incorrect treatment had significantly poorer scores for all 10 PEQ dimensions. Those spending the night in a corridor bed had significantly poorer scores for six dimensions. Emergency admissions and the previous number of inpatient stays were significantly associated with poorer experiences for 10 and 7 dimensions respectively. Hospital size and university status had negative relationships with scores for six and four dimensions respectively. Conclusions: Whether the patient felt that he/she had received the incorrect treatment had by far the strongest association with patient experiences. Future studies of patient experiences and satisfaction should include this variable. As found in previous research, patient experiences were significantly associated with age and health status.

The use of data from national and other large-scale user experience surveys in local quality work: a systematic review

PURPOSE An important goal for national and large-scale surveys of user experiences is quality improvement. However, large-scale surveys are normally conducted by a professional external surveyor, creating an institutionalized division between the measurement of user experiences and the quality work that is performed locally. The aim of this study was to identify and describe scientific studies related to the use of national and large-scale surveys of user experiences in local quality work. DATA SOURCES Ovid EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION Scientific publications about user experiences and satisfaction about the extent to which data from national and other large-scale user experience surveys are used for local quality work in the health services. DATA EXTRACTION Themes of interest were identified and a narrative analysis was undertaken. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS Thirteen publications were included, all differed substantially in several characteristics. The results show that large-scale surveys of user experiences are used in local quality work. The types of follow-up activity varied considerably from conducting a follow-up analysis of user experience survey data to information sharing and more-systematic efforts to use the data as a basis for improving the quality of care. CONCLUSION This review shows that large-scale surveys of user experiences are used in local quality work. However, there is a need for more, better and standardized research in this field. The considerable variation in follow-up activities points to the need for systematic guidance on how to use data in local quality work.

The Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQ-OHC): data quality, reliability, and validity.

Abstract Objective. To develop and evaluate the Patient Experiences Questionnaire for Out-of-Hours Care (PEQ-OHC) in Norway. Design. Questionnaire development was based on a systematic literature review of existing questionnaires, interviews with users, and expert group consultation. Questionnaire testing followed a postal survey of users who had attended out-of-hours centres in the North, West, and South of Norway. Setting. Primary care out-of-hours services. Subjects. The questionnaire was pre-tested with 13 users and was then mailed to 542 users who had had telephone contact and/or had a consultation with one of three out-of-hours centres. Main outcome measures. Data quality, internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity. Results. The questionnaire was considered to have good content validity by the expert group. There were 225 (41.51%) respondents to the postal questionnaire. Levels of missing data at the item and scale level were acceptable. Principal component analysis supported the four scales of user experiences relating to telephone contact, doctor services, nursing services, and organization. Item-total correlations were all above 0.5 and Cronbachs alpha was above 0.80 for all scales. Statistically significant associations based on explicit hypotheses were evidence for the construct validity of the PEQ-OHC. Conclusion. The development of the PEQ-OHC followed a rigorous process based on a systematic review, interviews with users, and an expert group which lend the questionnaire content validity. The PEQ-OHC has evidence for data quality, internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity.

The Norwegian patient experiences with GP questionnaire (PEQ-GP): reliability and construct validity following a national survey

Objectives The aim of this study was to test the reliability and validity of a new questionnaire for measuring patient experiences with general practitioners (PEQ-GP) following a national survey. Setting Postal survey among patients on any of 500 GPs patient lists in Norway. GPs were stratified by practice size and geographical criteria. Participants 4964 patients who had at least one consultation with their regular GP in the foregoing 12 months were included in the study. The patients were randomly selected after the selection of GPs. 2377 patients (49%) responded to the survey. Primary and secondary outcome measures The items were assessed for missing data and ceiling effects. Factor structure was assessed using exploratory factor analyses. Reliability was tested with item–total correlation, Cronbach’s alpha and test–retest correlations. Item discriminant validity was tested by correlating items with all scales. Construct validity was assessed through associations of scale scores with health status, the patients’ general satisfaction with the services, whether the patient had been incorrectly treated by the GP and whether the patient would recommend the GP to others. Results Item missing varied from 1.0% to 3.1%, while ceiling effects varied from 16.1% to 45.9%. The factor analyses identified three factors. Reliability statistics for scales based on these three factors, and two theoretically derived scales, showed item–total correlations ranging from 0.63 to 0.85 and Cronbach’s alpha values from 0.77 to 0.93. Test–retest correlation for the five scales varied from 0.72 to 0.88. All scales had the expected association with other variables. Conclusions The PEQ-GP has good evidence for data quality, internal consistency and construct validity. The PEQ-GP is recommended for use in local, regional and national surveys in Norway, but further studies are needed to assess the instrument’s ability to detect differences over time and between different GPs.

The Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire: reliability and validity of a one-page questionnaire following surveys in three patient populations

Background This study developed and tested the reliability and validity of the Universal Patient Centeredness Questionnaire (UPC-Q). Methods The UPC-Q developed in this study has three parts: 1) the aspects that patients consider the most important when receiving a relevant health care service, rating the health care services on these aspects and their prioritization, 2) the overall experiences of patients using the relevant health care service, and 3) suggestions for improvements. The UPC-Q was tested in four different patient-experience surveys in 2015, including psychiatric inpatients (n=109), general practitioner (GP) patients (n=1,059), and inpatients from two hospital samples (n=973, n=599). The UPC-Q was tested for item completeness and ceiling effects, while the UPC-Q scale consisting of the first part of the UPC-Q was tested for internal consistency reliability and construct validity. Results The percentage of patients rating at least one aspect was 70.6% for psychiatric inpatients, 77.6% for hospital inpatients, and 90.6% for GP patients, while 88.9% of the psychiatric inpatients, 93.1% of the hospital inpatients, and 95.3% of the GP patients were able to prioritize the aspects. The internal consistency reliability of the UPC-Q scale was acceptable in all samples (Cronbach’s alpha >0.7), and construct validity was supported by 20 of 21 significant associations between the UPC-Q and related variables. The UPC-Q total score was skewed toward positive evaluations, but the ceiling effect was smaller for an unbalanced response scale than for a balanced scale. Conclusion The UPC-Q includes ratings of what is most important for individual patients, while at the same time providing data for improving the quality of health care and making it possible to monitor trends within and across patient populations. This study included psychiatric inpatients, hospital inpatients, and GP patients, and found that the UPC-Q performed well in terms of acceptance, internal consistency reliability, and construct validity.