Literature DB >> 22942399

The accident and emergency department questionnaire: a measure for patients' experiences in the accident and emergency department.

Nanne Bos1, Steve Sizmur, Chris Graham, Henk F van Stel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Health Service National Patient Survey Programme systematically gathers patients' experiences about the care they have recently received. Prioritising quality improvement activities in the accident and emergency (A&E) department requires that survey outcomes are meaningful and reliable. We aimed to determine which method of obtaining summary scores for the A&E department questionnaire optimally combined good interpretability with robust psychometric characteristics.
METHODS: A&E department questionnaire data from 151 hospital trusts were analysed, covering 49 646 patients. Three methods of grouping and summarising items of the questionnaire were compared: principal components analysis (PCA); Department of Health dimensions; sections according to the patient's journey through the A&E department. The patient-level reliability of summary scores was determined by Cronbach's α coefficients (threshold: α>0.70), construct validity by Pearson's correlation coefficients, and the discriminative capacity by intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and reliability of A&E-level mean scores.
RESULTS: The PCA provided the best score reliability on six clear and interpretable composites: waiting time; doctors and nurses; your care and treatment; hygiene; information before discharge; overall. The discriminative power of the concepts was comparable for the three methods, with ICCs between 0.010 and 0.061. A&E sample sizes were adequate to obtain good to excellent reliability of A&E-level mean scores.
CONCLUSIONS: The A&E department questionnaire is a valid and reliable questionnaire to assess patients' experiences with the A&E. The discriminative power of six summary scores offers a reliable comparison of healthcare performance between A&Es to increase patient centredness and quality of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22942399     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001072

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  12 in total

1.  A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures.

Authors:  Claudia Bull; Joshua Byrnes; Ruvini Hettiarachchi; Martin Downes
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  A comparison of the quality of care in accident and emergency departments in England and the Netherlands as experienced by patients.

Authors:  Nanne Bos; Ian J Seccombe; Leontien M Sturms; Rebecca Stellato; Augustinus J P Schrijvers; Henk F van Stel
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2014-10-09       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  A scale assessing doctor-patient communication in a context of acute conditions based on a systematic review.

Authors:  Mélanie Sustersic; Aurélie Gauchet; Anaïs Kernou; Charlotte Gibert; Alison Foote; Céline Vermorel; Jean-Luc Bosson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  Measuring patient experience: a systematic review to evaluate psychometric properties of patient reported experience measures (PREMs) for emergency care service provision.

Authors:  Leanne Male; Adam Noble; Jessica Atkinson; Tony Marson
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.038

5.  Care pathway and organisational features driving patient experience: statistical analysis of large NHS datasets.

Authors:  Kelsey Flott; Ara Darzi; Erik Mayer
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-07-07       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  Patient experience feedback in UK hospitals: What types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?

Authors:  Claire Marsh; Rosemary Peacock; Laura Sheard; Lesley Hughes; Rebecca Lawton
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 3.377

7.  Nurses in the triage of the emergency department: self-compassion and empathy.

Authors:  Roberta Maria Savieto; Stewart Mercer; Carolina Carvalho Pereira Matos; Eliseth Ribeiro Leão
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2019-07-18

8.  Quality of acute internal medicine: A patient-centered approach. Validation and usage of the Patient Reported Measure-acute care in the Netherlands.

Authors:  Marjolein N T Kremers; Elsemieke E M Mols; Yvonne A E Simons; Sander M J van Kuijk; Frits Holleman; Prabath W B Nanayakkara; Harm R Haak
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) After Discharge From the Emergency Department: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Vincenzo G Menditto; Antonello Maraldo; Pamela Barbadoro; Roberto Maccaroni; Aldo Salvi; Marcello M D'Errico; Stefano Marasca
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2021-04-18

10.  Proposal for a Global Adherence Scale for Acute Conditions (GASAC): A prospective cohort study in two emergency departments.

Authors:  Mélanie Sustersic; Aurélie Gauchet; Amélie Duvert; Laure Gonnet; Alison Foote; Céline Vermorel; Benoit Allenet; Jean-Luc Bosson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-12-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.