What Methods Are Used to Measure Patient Experience? Surveys are one of the most common ways to measure patient experience. Other methods include conducting patient focus groups and interviews.
What tool measures patient experience?
HCAHPS is the most used instrument to evaluate PE.
Which surveys measure the patient experience?
HCAHPS Overview – The HCAHPS (Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems) survey is the first national, standardized, publicly reported survey of patients’ perspectives of hospital care. HCAHPS (pronounced “H-caps”), also known as the CAHPS Hospital Survey, is a survey instrument and data collection methodology for measuring patients’ perceptions of their hospital experience.
While many hospitals have collected information on patient satisfaction for their own internal use, until HCAHPS there was no national standard for collecting and publicly reporting information about patient experience of care that allowed valid comparisons to be made across hospitals locally, regionally and nationally.
Three broad goals have shaped HCAHPS. First, the survey is designed to produce data about patients’ perspectives of care that allow objective and meaningful comparisons of hospitals on topics that are important to consumers. Second, public reporting of the survey results creates new incentives for hospitals to improve quality of care.
What is patient reported experience measures in healthcare?
‘Have your say’ – Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) The patient reported experience survey will ask patients and parents/carers about their recent experience with the care they/their child received at the hospital. This feedback will help us find out what we are doing well and what can be improved.
What is the best way to measure patient experience?
The most commonly researched approaches for measuring patient and carer experience include surveys, interviews and patient stories. There is little comparative information about the pros and cons of these approaches, but a number of studies have examined the properties of individual tools.
What are patient reported experience metrics?
Figure. Stepwise Approach to Supporting Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) and Patient-Reported Experience Measure (PREM) Selection and Implementation Table 1. Repositories of PROMs and PREMs With Established Validity and Reliability Table 2. Barriers and Supports for PROM and PREM Implementation at the System, Service, and Individual Levels April 1, 2022 JAMA Health Forum.2022;3(4):e220326. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0326 Importance Psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are critical to evaluating quality and performance across health services and systems. However, the adoption and implementation of PROMs and PREMs remain a challenge in many countries. The aim of this guide is to support instrument selection and implementation to measure health system performance. Observations The guide is split into 3 step-by-step sections. Step 1: Knowing What to Measure discusses what PROMs and PREMs capture and how they differ from related instruments. Step 2: Choosing the Right Instrument describes the critical psychometric properties of validity, reliability, and responsiveness, and provides resources to support instrument selection and evaluation. Step 3: Mitigating Potential PROM and PREM Implementation Barriers outlines key barriers and supports for instrument implementation at system, service, and individual levels. Conclusions and Relevance This guide aims to provide practical resources for the identification of psychometrically robust PROMs and PREMs, as well as support for their implementation to drive improvements across health systems globally. The systematic and routine use of rigorously developed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is heralded as critical to evaluating quality and performance across health services and systems.1 – 5 Use of PROMs and PREMs captures a multitude of health, well-being, and experiential dimensions, 6, 7 supporting the provision of person-centered, value-based health care.8 – 12 However, the adoption and implementation of PROMs and PREMs remain a challenge in many countries. Furthermore, while there have been substantial advancements in the development and psychometric evaluation of PROMs and PREMs in recent decades, 13, 14 using patient data to drive quality improvement and system changes is still variable and ambiguous.5 The aims of this guide are 2-fold: first, to provide practical support for the identification of appropriate and psychometrically sound PROMs and PREMs, and second, to support PROM and PREM implementation efforts by highlighting potential barriers and how they may be mitigated. This guide follows a step-by-step approach ( Figure ). Step 1: Knowing What to Measure Patient-reported outcome measures are standardized, validated instruments that are completed by patients to measure their health and well-being.7, 15 They can capture a wide range of outcomes, including physical functioning, social functioning, psychological well-being, symptom severity, disability, and impairment.6, 7, 16 Use of PROMs is common to assess changes in outcomes after the implementation of a new intervention (eg, therapy, service, policy), allowing inferences to be made about effectiveness and safety.6, 17 They are also used to monitor health conditions of individuals and cohorts over time, as well as the effects of treatments longitudinally.4 They can be used in isolation or linked with other sources of information about individuals and cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures can be either generic or condition specific. Generic PROMs are designed to apply to a broad range of patients, conditions, and treatments, capturing aspects of health and well-being that are applicable to everyone. Examples include the 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) adult global health measure. Alternatively, condition-specific PROMs apply to specific groups of patients relative to their health condition or the procedure they are undergoing (eg, Oxford Knee Score, Oxford Hip Score). Despite being referred to and used synonymously in literature and research, 18 – 21 PROMs differ from quality of life (QoL) and utility measures. Quality of life and utility measures are preference-based measures primarily used in the context of cost-utility analysis (a form of economic evaluation).22 They comprise 2 components: (1) the measure itself, and (2) a valuation system.22 While QoL and utility measures may capture similar health concepts to those captured by PROMs (eg, physical functioning), they are operationalized (put to use) differently; PROMs are typically scored on an item-by-item or domain (subscale) basis, based on the scale structure determined through psychometric analyses, whereas an individuals’ QoL is scored as one of a finite number of health states.22 The QoL valuation system then enables a number between −1 and +1 to be assigned to the individuals’ health state, subsequently representing the value of that health state (where 1 indicates full health, 0 indicates death, and <0 indicates health states worse than death).22 Examples of QoL and utility measures include the EQ-5D (EuroQol 5 dimensions), the SF-6D (Short Form 6 dimensions), and the HUI (Health Utility Index). Patient-reported experience measures are instruments that capture a patient's experience of receiving care, 7, 23 specifically the patient's perception of what happened during their care encounter and how it happened.13 Several researchers describe patient experiences broadly in terms of relational and functional aspects of care.24 - 26 Relational aspects can include the provision of emotional and psychological support, being treated with respect and dignity, being involved in decisions about care and treatment, receiving support for family and carer involvement, the provision of clear and comprehensive information, and transparent and honest communication.24 Functional aspects may include effective and timely treatment, expert management of physical symptoms, attention to physical support needs (eg, wheelchairs and blankets), attention to environmental needs (eg, clean, safe, and comfortable care environments), and the coordination and continuity of care.24 Patient-reported experience measures are primarily used to describe one-off patient experiences across a range of health care contexts and to demonstrate trends in experience scores within health services and systems over time. Notably, PREMs differ from patient satisfaction measures, despite being referred to interchangeably throughout the literature. Where PREMs ask patients to provide a report of their care experience (objective), patient satisfaction measures ask patients to evaluate their care experience (subjective).23, 27, 28 Evaluating involves the concepts of duty and culpability.27 That is, when evaluating a service, patient responses are influenced by their expectations of what a service should and should not do for them (duty) and whether the service is to blame when things that should not happen do happen, or when things that should happen do not happen (culpability).27 Thus, responses to satisfaction questionnaires are more likely to reflect patient expectations, attitudes of appreciation, and social acceptability 27, 29, 30 as opposed to an objective report of what they experienced during their care encounter. There are also differences in the response categories used in PREMs and satisfaction measures. Where PREMs typically employ frequency-based response scales (eg, never, sometimes, often, always), 31 - 33 patient satisfaction measures use agreement-based response scales (eg, strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly agree).34 - 36 Agreement-based scales are criticized for being biased by acquiescence (tendency to agree with an item irrespective of what is being asked 37 ) and straightlining (tendency to give identical or near identical responses to consecutive questions 38 ). For these reasons, patient experience data are argued to be more actionable for evaluating health care quality. Thus, a critical component of implementing PROMs and PREMs is understanding whether users want to capture patient outcomes of care (PROMs), experiences of care (PREMs), QoL (QoL measures), or satisfaction with care (patient satisfaction measures). The decision of what to measure should be based on the goal or aim of the study or quality improvement project. Additionally, the selection of an instrument(s) should ideally be driven by key stakeholders, such as patients and health care professionals, relative to their priorities for optimizing person-centered, value-based health care. Step 2: Choosing the Right Instrument Psychometrics is a branch of psychology that seeks to measure any number of behavioral and social phenomena using rigorous statistical methods.39 Validity, reliability, and responsiveness are key psychometric properties that provide an assessment of instrument quality, thereby supporting the quality of the resultant information collected. Validity is defined as the extent to which an instrument measures what it was designed to measure.40 The American Psychological Association recognizes 3 overarching types of validity.41 Criterion validity is the extent to which an instrument correlates with a "gold standard." 42 There are 2 types of criterion validity: concurrent criterion validity (ie, the extent of correlation between an instrument and gold standard comparator administered at the same time) and predictive criterion validity (ie, the extent of correlation between a current instrument and gold standard comparator administered in the future). Criterion validity is criticized, however, for the general lack of gold standard instruments to compare against. The Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) group notes that an exception to this general lack of a gold standard is when a short version of an instrument is compared with a longer or existing version 43 (eg, comparing the SF-12 to the SF-36, where the SF-36 is considered the gold standard).44 Thus, it can be difficult for instruments to demonstrate criterion validity. Construct validity is the extent to which an instrument behaves as expected relative to the construct being measured.45 For example, it is expected that a patient's overall experience of emergency department care is going to be positively correlated with their outcomes of care (ie, better outcomes correlate with better experiences) but negatively correlated with the duration of their wait time (ie, a shorter wait correlates with a better experience). Thus, a PREM with good construct validity would demonstrate this type of relationship because it aligns with the hypotheses of how these variables correlate. Content validity is the extent to which the content of an instrument adequately reflects the theoretical construct(s) being measured.43 This is considered to be the most important property of an instrument because it reflects whether items are relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible to the target population. Given that the target population of PROMs and PREMs is patients (irrespective of the health care context), the involvement of patients in the development of PROM and PREM items is essential. Construct and face validity are sometimes referred to interchangeably in the literature.46 However, face validity is an informal assessment of whether items look (on face value) to capture the intended theoretical construct(s) 43, 47 and should not be used in isolation or as a surrogate for content validity. Thus, it is critical that PROMs and PREMs demonstrate sound levels of validity because this ensures that they are accurately measuring the construct(s) under investigation. Reliability refers to the extent to which an instrument performs in consistent and predictable ways.48 There are 3 main types of reliability. Test-retest reliability is the extent that participant responses remain stable over consecutive data collections in relation to the same event (construct stability).40, 49 Undertaking this type of repeated measurement is likely to produce different results unrelated to the instruments' level of reliability (eg, random error, subject inconsistency in scoring).42 As such, a shorter time frame between instrument administrations is likely to be more suitable for producing a robust test-retest reliability score. It is well documented that patient experiences deteriorate over time because of an individual's changing expectations, exposure to similar stimuli (eg, other health care experiences), and misremembering the events that occurred.50 - 54 Indeed, some researchers purposefully refrain from assessing PREM test-retest reliability for this reason, 55 and it is one of the least commonly assessed PREM psychometric properties.13 Thus, neither PROMs nor PREMs should be discounted if they do not demonstrate sound test-retest reliability. Internal consistency reliability is the degree of interrelatedness among items of the same scale (unidimensional instrument) or subscale (multidimensional instrument).43, 46 Cronbach α is most frequently used to indicate an instrument's internal consistency.13 Additionally, factor analysis (commonly used to demonstrate construct validity) is another means of supporting internal consistency assessment because items within a PROM or PREM subscale (assuming the instrument is multidimensional) should correlate strongly as they are measuring the same latent (unobservable) trait.46, 48 Measurement error represents the extent of systemic and random error in respondent scores that is not attributable to true changes in the construct being measured.46 Measurement error may also be described as noise (variance in scores that is owing to randomness), where we are more interested in the signal (variance in true scores).48, 56 Adequate sample sizes in the development and psychometric evaluation of PROMs and PREMs are critical for reducing measurement error because a greater number of responses reduces randomness in the results.56 Responsiveness is considered an aspect of construct validity and refers to the ability of an instrument to detect change over time where change has occurred.57 This is commonly reported in terms of clinically important change(s) to the construct being measured.46 However, PROMs and PREMs do not necessarily need to demonstrate responsiveness if used in a discriminatory capacity (eg, to detect differences in experiences between different health care professionals) but should evidence responsiveness if used in an evaluative capacity (eg, evaluating the effect of a new intervention).46, 58 Notably, clinical importance is different from statistical significance. Where statistical significance ( P < .05) indicates the probability of results being due to chance, clinical significance relates to the magnitude of a treatment effect and if the effect is meaningful.59 Results that are clinically important are those most likely to change current practice. While there are several articles providing guidance on responsiveness and clinically important differences for PROMs and QoL or utility measures, 60, 61 the same cannot be said for PREMs. This is an area of PREM psychometric evaluation that warrants greater investigation; determining a clinically important difference in patient experience scores may present an alternative means to supporting value-based performance (VBP) programs, where incentives are based on meaningful changes in scores, not just improvements on previous scores. Additional Considerations Floor and ceiling effects occur when a substantial proportion (15%-20%) of participant scores for an item cluster at the bottom end (floor) or top end (ceiling) of a response scale.62 The presence of floor and ceiling effects makes it difficult to distinguish differences between respondents at respective ends of the response scale, thereby affecting the sensitivity of the instrument. If floor and ceiling effects occur for a number of items within a PROM or PREM, this may indicate that the instrument lacks variability, suggestive of inadequate content validity.63 Cross-cultural adaptation refers to the process whereby a measure developed in one language or culture is adapted to be equivalently meaningful and applicable in another language or culture.64 The adaptation process is supported by cross-cultural validation whereby the performance of translated items are assessed to determine whether they are an accurate reflection of the items in the original instrument.64 Best practice guidance by Guillemin et al 65 for cross-cultural adaptation of instruments suggests 5 sequential steps be followed when translating instruments, including:
Forward translation of items into new language by qualified translators Back translation of items into existing language to determine consistency of content Convene a stakeholder committee to compare the original and new instrument versions Undertake pretesting with both the original and new instrument to check for content equivalence Consider weighting items depending on the cultural context (ie, there may be items that are more important in certain contexts than the original)
An adapted measure is considered to demonstrate cross-cultural validity when respondents from different groups (eg, English speaking and Spanish speaking) respond similarly to items of respective instruments as evidenced through regression analyses, confirmatory factor analysis, or non–differential item functioning.66 Supporting Robust PROM and PREM Selection There are several resources that can support the selection of psychometrically robust PROMs and PREMs.
Table 1 8, 13, 14, 67 – 74 presents a comprehensive list of repositories that include PROMs and PREMs for a variety of health care contexts. Many of these also provide information on the extent of psychometric evaluation that instruments have undergone. Another important resource to support robust PROM and PREM selection is COSMIN, an initiative that seeks to improve both the selection and development of PROMs and other health outcome measurement instruments.75 Given the general lack of PREM-specific guidance, COSMIN is also used to support the development and psychometric evaluation of PREMs.13, 76, 77 This also highlights the impetus for PREM-specific guidance.
The COSMIN guidance can support users to assess the psychometric quality of an instrument where no formal assessment has been documented or to support the development and psychometric evaluation of a new instrument. Despite numerous useful resources to support the identification and selection of psychometrically sound PROMs and PREMs, uniform adoption and implementation is challenged by a range of barriers.
Step 3: Mitigating Potential PROM and PREM Implementation Barriers The implementation of PROMs and PREMs to measure health system performance is challenged by factors within and across health systems. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development notes that “if each country continues to do its own thing on patient-reported performance, opportunities to identify excellence, support poor performers and drive improvements across the board will be missed.” 78 Among the key recommendations for international improvement in health system performance measurement, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that where valid PROMs and PREMs do not yet exist for priority diseases, sectors, or services, new measures should be developed.78 They also highlight the importance of formally assessing and piloting PROMs and PREMs in different languages and settings to ensure that they are rigorously developed and tested for the purposes of international comparison.78 However, given that implementation challenges are rife at the microlevel (eg, at the service level), it may be more appropriate to consider the barriers and supports for PROM and PREM implementation within the context of a single system.
Table 2 15, 79 – 89 summarizes a range of barriers and supports for PROM and PREM implementation at the system, service, and individual levels. There are also challenges associated with some instruments themselves, such as their burdensome length, 82 lack of sensitivity (eg, poor ability to discriminate results between different services and patient groups), and susceptibility to floor and ceiling effects.79 However, these are well documented elsewhere in the literature and will not be addressed here.
- It is important to note that changes occurring at any one level are likely to have a ripple effect on other levels.
- Critically, this is important for shifting system cultures and priorities toward understanding the importance of PROMs and PREMs for value-based health care.
- However, there is also an important balance to be struck between producing results that are tailored to individual services yet supportive of initiatives at the system level.
A key barrier at the system level includes cultural resistance toward substantial advancements in person-centered, value-based health care. System-level priorities that align with person-centered and value-based health care necessitate a focus on PROMs and PREMs because the principles underpinning these frameworks champion consumer outcomes, values, preferences, and perspectives.90, 91 Thus, embedding these priorities in national health care policy, funding, safety and quality standards, accreditation expectations, and service agreements in meaningful ways will have flow-on effects for establishing system-level PROM and PREM implementation programs and benchmarking.
Commonly cited barriers for PROM and PREM implementation at the service level include a lack of leadership 79, 83, 85 and information technology infrastructure to support PROM and PREM implementation.79, 82, 84 Additionally, implementation is costly, 79 – 81, 84, 85 further compounding other recognized service-level barriers.
Strong and visible support for PROM and PREM implementation at executive and senior levels, as well as the integration of implementation in service-level strategic priorities, is critical for fostering cultures engaged in PROM and PREM implementation.79, 80, 82, 84, 85 Integrating PROM and PREM data collection and feedback mechanisms within services’ existing information technology infrastructure will also support implementation, as well as reduce costs and the burden on health care professionals.82, 84, 86, 87 Implementation can be hugely burdensome on health care professionals in terms of the volume of data they are asked to collect from patients, 80, 83 as well as the amount of time they are required to invest in the analysis and interpretation of PROM and PREM feedback.79, 82 – 85, 88 Skepticism arises when health care professionals question the reliability and validity of PROM and PREM data and the value and purpose of instrument implementation.79, 82 – 85 There are also patient-related barriers, including burden, 82, 84 and the view that PROM and PREM data are only useful for health care professionals (not themselves).82, 88 Thus, potential supports include outsourcing PROM and PREM implementation, data analysis, and interpretation to third parties to minimize the burden on health care professionals.
- This presently occurs in the US and England 92, 93 but needs to be considered relative to a services’ desire to promote local ownership of PROM and PREM implementation.
- Additionally, the interpretation and presentation of PROM and PREM feedback to health care professionals is viewed as more useful when provided alongside other important metrics (eg, service-related data such as wait times, patient importance scores, qualitative case examples) and adjusted for confounding patient variables.15, 79, 85, 89 Examples of System-Level PROM and PREM Programs Two examples of successful system-level PROM and PREM programs include (1) the English National Health Service (NHS) PROMs program and (2) the US Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Services (CAHPS) program.
The NHS PROMs program was established in 2009 and saw PROMs administered preoperatively and postoperatively to all patients undergoing hip and knee replacement across NHS-funded services.93 The purpose of the program was to gauge the extent to which patients recovered or deteriorated in the 6 months after surgery.93 The PROM data are summarized and publicly reported on NHS Digital annually, 94 supporting service benchmarking and the National Tariff Payment System, 95 a value-based performance scheme that offers bonus payments to health care professionals who provide quality care in line with risk-adjusted national average improvements in patient health status.96, 97 The US CAHPS program is arguably the largest PREM program internationally.
Since launching in 1995, close to 20 CAHPS measures have been implemented across Medicare and Medicaid services in the US.92 These PREMs have been increasingly used to support health plan accreditation, consumer choice of health care professionals (through public reporting websites such as Care Compare 98 and Plan Finder 99 ), services and health plans, and VBP programs.
Arguably the best-known VBP program is the Hospital VBP (HVBP) Program that uses PREM data from the Hospital CAHPS. This program adjusts payments to hospitals under the Inpatient Prospective Payment System based on the quality of care delivered to patients.12 The HVBP Program is funded by a 2% reduction in participating hospitals’ Medicare severity diagnosis-related group payments for the fiscal year.
This pool of funding is then redistributed to hospitals relative to their Total Performance Score, which is based on 4 equally weighted quality domains: (1) clinical outcomes, (2) person and community engagement (informed by Hospital CAHPS), (3) safety, and (4) efficiency and cost reduction.12 The HVBP Program made roughly $1.9 billion in incentive payments during the 2020 financial year.100 Thus, while the implementation of PROMs and PREMs at the system level can be challenging, it is also clear that these types of programs can be successful.
Learnings from the English and US programs should be duly considered as we look toward the future of PROMs and PREMs in value-based health care. Despite important progress in the development and psychometric evaluation of PROMs and PREMs over recent years, there remains challenges to their implementation.
- Moreover, learnings from countries that have successfully integrated PROMs and PREMs into health system performance measurement are yet to be effectively transferred to countries that are further behind.
- While it is clear that changes at the system, service, and individual levels need to occur to support PROM and PREM implementation, these efforts will be critical to driving person-centered, value-based health care globally.
Accepted for Publication: February 2, 2022. Published: April 1, 2022. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.0326 Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License, © 2022 Bull C et al. JAMA Health Forum, Corresponding Author: Claudia Bull, BNutr (Hons), School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3141, Australia ( [email protected] ).
- Author Contributions : Ms Bull had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
- Concept and design: Bull, Callander.
- Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Bull, Teede, Watson.
- Drafting of the manuscript: Bull, Callander.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Bull. Administrative, technical, or material support: Bull, Callander. Supervision: Watson, Callander. Other—Expertise and guidance in the field: Teede.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Profs Teede and Callander reported grants from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.14. Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues.
Health Expect,2021;24(4):1015-1024. doi: 10.1111/hex.13254 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 18. Jonsson Å, Orwelius L, Dahlstrom U, Kristenson M. Evaluation of the usefulness of EQ-5D as a patient-reported outcome measure using the Paretian classification of health change among patients with chronic heart failure.
- J Patient Rep Outcomes,2020;4(1):50.
- Doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00216-7 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 21.
- Weldring T, Smith SM.
- Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).
- Health Serv Insights,2013;6:61-68.
- PubMed Google Scholar 22.
- Whitehurst DG, Noonan VK, Dvorak MF, Bryan S.
A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord,2012;50(9):646-654. doi: 10.1038/sc.2012.46 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 34. Grogan S, Conner M, Willits D, Norman P. Development of a questionnaire to measure patients’ satisfaction with general practitioners’ services.
Br J Gen Pract,1995;45(399):525-529. PubMed Google Scholar 36. Hojat M, Louis DZ, Maxwell K, Markham FW, Wender RC, Gonnella JS. A brief instrument to measure patients’ overall satisfaction with primary care physicians. Fam Med,2011;43(6):412-417. PubMed Google Scholar 37. Acquiescence response bias.
In: Lavrakas PJ, ed. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, Sage Publications; 2008.40. Babbie ER. The Practice of Social Research, Cengage Learning; 2015.42. Bellamy N. Principles of clinical outcome assessment. In: Hochberg MC, Silman AJ, Smolen JS, Weinblatt ME, Weisman MH, eds.
- Rheumatology,6th ed.
- Mosby; 2015:9-19.
- Doi: 10.1016/B978-0-323-09138-1.00002-4 44.
- Lin Y, Yu Y, Zeng J, Zhao X, Wan C.
- Comparing the reliability and validity of the SF-36 and SF-12 in measuring quality of life among adolescents in China: a large sample cross-sectional study.
- Health Qual Life Outcomes,2020;18(1):360.
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01605-8 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 45. DeVillis RF. Validity. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ, eds. Scale Development: Theory and Applications,4th ed. SAGE Publications; 2017.46. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes.
J Clin Epidemiol,2010;63(7):737-745. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 47. Chiang I-CA, Jhangiani RS, Price PC. Research Methods in Psychology—2nd Canadian Edition, BCcampus; 2015.48. DeVellis RF. Reliability. In: Bickman L, Rog DJ, eds. Scale Development: Theory and Applications,4th ed.
SAGE Publications; 2017.50. Bendall-Lyon D, Powers TL, Swan JE. Time does not heal all wounds: patients report lower satisfaction levels as time goes by. Mark Health Serv,2001;21(3):10-14. PubMed Google Scholar 52. Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance,
- Stanford University Press; 1957.55.
- Christalle E, Zeh S, Hahlweg P, Kriston L, Härter M, Scholl I.
- Assessment of patient centredness through patient-reported experience measures (ASPIRED): protocol of a mixed-methods study.
- BMJ Open,2018;8(10):e025896.
- Doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025896 PubMed Google Scholar 56.
Staggs VS, Cramer E. Reliability of pressure ulcer rates: how precisely can we differentiate among hospital units, and does the standard signal-noise reliability measure reflect this precision? Res Nurs Health,2016;39(4):298-305. doi: 10.1002/nur.21727 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 57.
Cohen RJ. Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement,8th ed. McGraw Hill; 2013.58. Holmes C, Briffa N. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in patients undergoing heart valve surgery: why should we measure them and which instruments should we use? Open Heart,2016;3(1):e000315.
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2015-000315 PubMed Google Scholar 61. Su F, Allahabadi S, Bongbong DN, Feeley BT, Lansdown DA. Minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state of outcome measures relating to shoulder pathology and surgery: a systematic review.
- Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med,2021;14(1):27-46.
- Doi: 10.1007/s12178-020-09684-2 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 62. Garin O.
- Ceiling effect.
- In: Michalos AC, ed.
- Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research,
- Springer Netherlands; 2014:631-633.
- Doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_296 64.
- Huang WY, Wong SH.
Cross-cultural validation. In: Michalos AC, ed. Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, Springer; 2014:1369-1371. doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_630 72. Measures for Person Centred Coordinated Care. Plymouth University. Accessed February 27, 2022.
http://p3c.org.uk/ 77. Gärtner FR, Bomhof-Roordink H, Smith IP, Scholl I, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. The quality of instruments to assess the process of shared decision making: a systematic review. PLoS One,2018;13(2):e0191747. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191747 PubMed Google Scholar 81. Morton RL, Lioufas N, Dansie K, et al.
Use of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in renal units in Australia and New Zealand: a cross-sectional survey study. Nephrology (Carlton),2020;25(1):14-21. doi: 10.1111/nep.13577 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 82.
Wheat H, Horrell J, Valderas JM, Close J, Fosh B, Lloyd H. Can practitioners use patient reported measures to enhance person centred coordinated care in practice? a qualitative study. Health Qual Life Outcomes,2018;16(1):223. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-1045-1 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 83. Sheard L, Peacock R, Marsh C, Lawton R.
What’s the problem with patient experience feedback? a macro and micro understanding, based on findings from a three-site UK qualitative study. Health Expect,2019;22(1):46-53. doi: 10.1111/hex.12829 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 84. Stover AM, Haverman L, van Oers HA, Greenhalgh J, Potter CM; ISOQOL PROMs/PREMs in Clinical Practice Implementation Science Work Group.
Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Qual Life Res,2021;30(11):3015-3033. doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 85. Baldie DJ, Guthrie B, Entwistle V, Kroll T. Exploring the impact and use of patients’ feedback about their care experiences in general practice settings-a realist synthesis.
Session 8 – Patient Experience Measurement
Fam Pract,2018;35(1):13-21. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmx067 PubMed Google Scholar Crossref 89. Porter I, Gonçalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, et al. Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities.
What level of measurement is patient satisfaction?
Answer and Explanation: The Ordinal scale of measurement would represent the satisfaction level of consumers. The ordinal scale is a scale of quantification that uses the help of labels to organize distinct classes into the ordered sets.
What are the questions for patient satisfaction interview?
How do you try and create a great patient experience? Give an example of the most challenging patient you had under your care. What communication techniques have you used to ensure that patients and families feel informed and/or cared for? How do you like to be recognized for your hard work?
What is a Prem questionnaire?
A PREM is a Patient Reported Experience Measure, a measure of patient experience as reported by the patient themselves. We have developed a trust-wide PREM so that we can understand how people experience using our services and can monitor where such experience improves, or drops.
Why do we need patient reported experience measures?
Why is it important to report patient experience and what are the benefits of implementing CIHI’s patient experiences survey? – Understanding a patient’s experience when they received health care is integral to improving patient-centred care and assessing the performance of our health systems.
CIHI’s Canadian Patient Experiences Survey — Inpatient Care (CPES-IC) aims to improve the quality of care received in Canadian hospitals by providing patients, health care professionals and individual hospitals with standardized and comparable information on patients’ feedback about their acute care hospital experience.
In addition to gaining valuable knowledge about their own care processes, participating hospitals can use patient experience data alongside other health indicators to see how they compare with other hospitals, both in the same jurisdiction and across the country.
What are the 4Ps method?
What Are the Four Ps of Marketing? – Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, or processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. The four Ps of marketing is a marketing concept that summarizes the four key factors of any marketing strategy.
What is 4Ps approach?
The 4 Ps of Marketing: What They Are and How to Use Them The four Ps are a “marketing mix” comprised of four key elements—product, price, place, and promotion—used when marketing a product or service. Typically, businesses consider the four Ps when creating marketing plans and strategies to effectively market to their target audience.
What is 4Ps concept?
What are the 4 Ps of marketing? (Marketing mix explained) – The four Ps are product, price, place, and promotion. They are an example of a “marketing mix,” or the combined tools and methodologies used by marketers to achieve their marketing objectives.
The 4 Ps were first formally conceptualised in 1960 by E. Jerome McCarthy in the highly influential text, Basic Marketing, A Managerial Approach, There, McCarthy noted that while the text of the book was “similar to that found in the traditional texts, the approach is not.” McCarthy’s novel approach was influenced by the still-recent “marketing mix” concept, which Harvard Business School professor Neil.H.
Borden popularised in the 1950s. In fact, Borden himself had been influenced by a 1948 study written by James Culliton, in which the author equated business executives to “artists” or “mixer of ingredients”, Rather than using the same approach for every situation, then, Culliton and Borden recognised that successful executives instead mixed different methods depending on variable market forces. professional certificate