BACKGROUND: Revalidation is the UK process for the review of doctors to ensure they are fit to practise. Revalidation will include patient feedback. AIM: To investigate the role of patient feedback on GPs' consultations in revalidation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey of patients consulting 171 GPs. METHOD: A total of 6433 patients aged 16 years or over completed the consultation satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ). Generalisability analysis was undertaken, scale scores calculated, and outliers identified using two and three standard deviations from the mean as control limits. Comments made by patients were categorised into positive, neutral, or negative. RESULTS: After averaging each scale for each doctor, mean scores (standard deviation), out of a possible score of 100, were: general satisfaction 78.1 (7.2); professional care 82.1 (6.1); relationship 71.2 (7.1); perceived time 65.7 (7.6). A D-study (which enables estimation of the reliability from 0-1 of the CSQ scores for different numbers of responders for each doctor), indicated that ratings by 19 patients would achieve a generalisability coefficient of 0.80 for the combined score. Fifteen GPs had one or more scale scores below two standard deviations of the mean. Comments were more often negative for GPs with scores below two standard deviations of the mean. CONCLUSION: Most patients of most GPs are satisfied with their experience of consultations, and ways to make patient feedback formative for these doctors is required. For a few GPs, most patients report some dissatisfaction. Patient feedback may identify doctors who need educational support and possibly remediation, but agreed questionnaire score thresholds are required, and agreement is needed on the weight to be attached to patient experience in comparison with other aspects of performance.
BACKGROUND: Revalidation is the UK process for the review of doctors to ensure they are fit to practise. Revalidation will include patient feedback. AIM: To investigate the role of patient feedback on GPs' consultations in revalidation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey of patients consulting 171 GPs. METHOD: A total of 6433 patients aged 16 years or over completed the consultation satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ). Generalisability analysis was undertaken, scale scores calculated, and outliers identified using two and three standard deviations from the mean as control limits. Comments made by patients were categorised into positive, neutral, or negative. RESULTS: After averaging each scale for each doctor, mean scores (standard deviation), out of a possible score of 100, were: general satisfaction 78.1 (7.2); professional care 82.1 (6.1); relationship 71.2 (7.1); perceived time 65.7 (7.6). A D-study (which enables estimation of the reliability from 0-1 of the CSQ scores for different numbers of responders for each doctor), indicated that ratings by 19 patients would achieve a generalisability coefficient of 0.80 for the combined score. Fifteen GPs had one or more scale scores below two standard deviations of the mean. Comments were more often negative for GPs with scores below two standard deviations of the mean. CONCLUSION: Most patients of most GPs are satisfied with their experience of consultations, and ways to make patient feedback formative for these doctors is required. For a few GPs, most patients report some dissatisfaction. Patient feedback may identify doctors who need educational support and possibly remediation, but agreed questionnaire score thresholds are required, and agreement is needed on the weight to be attached to patient experience in comparison with other aspects of performance.
Authors: Douglas J Murphy; David A Bruce; Stewart W Mercer; Kevin W Eva Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Mirza Lalani; Rebecca Baines; Marie Bryce; Martin Marshall; Sol Mead; Stephen Barasi; Julian Archer; Samantha Regan de Bere Journal: Health Expect Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Carolin Sehlbach; Marjan J B Govaerts; Sharon Mitchell; Truus G J Teunissen; Frank W J M Smeenk; Erik W Driessen; Gernot G U Rohde Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-11-20 Impact factor: 3.377