Natasha Elmore

The role of patient experience surveys in quality assurance and improvement: a focus group study in English general practice

Despite widespread adoption of patient feedback surveys in international health‐care systems, including the English NHS, evidence of a demonstrable impact of surveys on service improvement is sparse.

Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients' survey data for general practices and individual doctors.

Objectives To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice. Design Analysis of postal survey of patients’ experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. Setting Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey. Participants 7721 of 15 172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013. Main outcome measure Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models. Results After control for differences in patients’ age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores. Conclusions Aggregating patients’ ratings of doctors’ communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to “screen” for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.

Assessing communication quality of consultations in primary care: initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale, based on the Calgary-Cambridge Guide to the Medical Interview

Objectives To investigate initial reliability of the Global Consultation Rating Scale (GCRS: an instrument to assess the effectiveness of communication across an entire doctor–patient consultation, based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview), in simulated patient consultations. Design Multiple ratings of simulated general practitioner (GP)–patient consultations by trained GP evaluators. Setting UK primary care. Participants 21 GPs and six trained GP evaluators. Outcome measures GCRS score. Methods 6 GP raters used GCRS to rate randomly assigned video recordings of GP consultations with simulated patients. Each of the 42 consultations was rated separately by four raters. We considered whether a fixed difference between scores had the same meaning at all levels of performance. We then examined the reliability of GCRS using mixed linear regression models. We augmented our regression model to also examine whether there were systematic biases between the scores given by different raters and to look for possible order effects. Results Assessing the communication quality of individual consultations, GCRS achieved a reliability of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.79) for two raters, 0.80 (0.54 to 0.85) for three and 0.85 (0.61 to 0.88) for four. We found an average difference of 1.65 (on a 0–10 scale) in the scores given by the least and most generous raters: adjusting for this evaluator bias increased reliability to 0.78 (0.53 to 0.83) for two raters; 0.85 (0.63 to 0.88) for three and 0.88 (0.69 to 0.91) for four. There were considerable order effects, with later consultations (after 15–20 ratings) receiving, on average, scores more than one point higher on a 0–10 scale. Conclusions GCRS shows good reliability with three raters assessing each consultation. We are currently developing the scale further by assessing a large sample of real-world consultations.

Investigating the relationship between consultation length and patient experience: a cross-sectional study in primary care

Background Longer consultations in primary care have been linked with better quality of care and improved health-related outcomes. However, there is little evidence of any potential association between consultation length and patient experience. Aim To examine the relationship between consultation length and patient-reported communication, trust and confidence in the doctor, and overall satisfaction. Design and setting Analysis of 440 videorecorded consultations and associated patient experience questionnaires from 13 primary care practices in England. Method Patients attending a face-to-face consultation with participating GPs consented to having their consultations videoed and completed a questionnaire. Consultation length was calculated from the videorecording. Linear regression (adjusting for patient and doctor demographics) was used to investigate associations between patient experience (overall communication, trust and confidence, and overall satisfaction) and consultation length. Results There was no evidence that consultation length was associated with any of the three measures of patient experience (P >0.3 for all). Adjusted changes on a 0–100 scale per additional minute of consultation were: communication score 0.02 (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.20 to 0.25), trust and confidence in the doctor 0.07 (95% CI = −0.27 to 0.41), and satisfaction −0.14 (95% CI = −0.46 to 0.18). Conclusion The authors found no association between patient experience measures of communication and consultation length, and patients may sometimes report good experiences from very short consultations. However, longer consultations may be required to achieve clinical effectiveness and patient safety: aspects also important for achieving high quality of care. Future research should continue to study the benefits of longer consultations, particularly for patients with complex multiple conditions.

Exploring resource use and associated costs in end-of-life care for older people with dementia in residential care homes

The goals of this study are to describe end‐of‐life care costs of older people with dementia (OPWD) residents in care homes (CHs) with no on‐site nursing and evaluate the economic case for an intervention designed to improve end‐of‐life care for OPWD in CHs.

Emergency ambulance service involvement with residential care homes in the support of older people with dementia: an observational study.

BackgroundOlder people resident in care homes have a limited life expectancy and approximately two-thirds have limited mental capacity. Despite initiatives to reduce unplanned hospital admissions for this population, little is known about the involvement of emergency services in supporting residents in these settings.MethodsThis paper reports on a longitudinal study that tracked the involvement of emergency ambulance personnel in the support of older people with dementia, resident in care homes with no on-site nursing providing personal care only. 133 residents with dementia across 6 care homes in the East of England were tracked for a year. The paper examines the frequency and reasons for emergency ambulance call-outs, outcomes and factors associated with emergency ambulance service use.Results56% of residents used ambulance services. Less than half (43%) of all call-outs resulted in an unscheduled admission to hospital. In addition to trauma following a following a fall in the home, results suggest that at least a reasonable proportion of ambulance contacts are for ambulatory care sensitive conditions. An emergency ambulance is not likely to be called for older rather than younger residents or for women more than men. Length of residence does not influence use of emergency ambulance services among older people with dementia. Contact with primary care services and admission route into the care home were both significantly associated with emergency ambulance service use. The odds of using emergency ambulance services for residents admitted from a relative’s home were 90% lower than the odds of using emergency ambulance services for residents admitted from their own home.ConclusionsEmergency service involvement with this vulnerable population merits further examination. Future research on emergency ambulance service use by older people with dementia in care homes, should account for important contextual factors, namely, presence or absence of on-site nursing, GP involvement, and access to residents’ family, alongside resident health characteristics.

Patients’ use and views of real-time feedback technology in general practice

There is growing interest in real‐time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement.

Rating Communication in GP Consultations: The Association Between Ratings Made by Patients and Trained Clinical Raters

Patient evaluations of physician communication are widely used, but we know little about how these relate to professionally agreed norms of communication quality. We report an investigation into the association between patient assessments of communication quality and an observer-rated measure of communication competence. Consent was obtained to video record consultations with Family Practitioners in England, following which patients rated the physician’s communication skills. A sample of consultation videos was subsequently evaluated by trained clinical raters using an instrument derived from the Calgary-Cambridge guide to the medical interview. Consultations scored highly for communication by clinical raters were also scored highly by patients. However, when clinical raters judged communication to be of lower quality, patient scores ranged from “poor” to “very good.” Some patients may be inhibited from rating poor communication negatively. Patient evaluations can be useful for measuring relative performance of physicians’ communication skills, but absolute scores should be interpreted with caution.

Understanding negative feedback from South Asian patients: an experimental vignette study

Objectives In many countries, minority ethnic groups report poorer care in patient surveys. This could be because they get worse care or because they respond differently to such surveys. We conducted an experiment to determine whether South Asian people in England rate simulated GP consultations the same or differently from White British people. If these groups rate consultations similarly when viewing identical simulated consultations, it would be more likely that the lower scores reported by minority ethnic groups in real surveys reflect real differences in quality of care. Design Experimental vignette study. Trained fieldworkers completed computer-assisted personal interviews during which participants rated 3 video recordings of simulated GP–patient consultations, using 5 communication items from the English GP Patient Survey. Consultations were shown in a random order, selected from a pool of 16. Setting Geographically confined areas of ∼130 households (output areas) in England, selected using proportional systematic sampling. Participants 564 White British and 564 Pakistani adults recruited using an in-home face-to-face approach. Main outcome measure Mean differences in communication score (on a scale of 0–100) between White British and Pakistani participants, estimated from linear regression. Results Pakistani participants, on average, scored consultations 9.8 points higher than White British participants (95% CI 8.0 to 11.7, p<0.001) when viewing the same consultations. When adjusted for age, gender, deprivation, self-rated health and video, the difference increased to 11.0 points (95% CI 8.5 to 13.6, p<0.001). The largest differences were seen when participants were older (>55) and where communication was scripted to be poor. Conclusions Substantial differences in ratings were found between groups, with Pakistani respondents giving higher scores than White British respondents to videos showing the same care. Our findings suggest that the lower scores reported by Pakistani patients in national surveys represent genuinely worse experiences of communication compared to the White British majority.

Consultation length: author response to Dr Brigid Joughin.

Thank you for your response.1 We were also surprised at the lack of correlation between consultation and patient experience and patient satisfaction. In reference to your first point, the national GP–patient survey questionnaire communication items that we used in the study ask the patient specifically about whether they feel …