PURPOSE: Clinical quality and patient experience are both widely used to evaluate the quality of health care, but the relationship between these 2 domains remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine this relationship using data from 2 established measures of quality in primary care in England. METHODS: Practice-level analyses (N = 7,759 practices in England) were conducted on measures of patient experience from the national General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS), and measures of clinical quality from the national pay-for-performance scheme (Quality and Outcomes Framework). Spearman's rank correlation and multiple linear regression were used on practice-level estimates. RESULTS: Although all the correlations between clinical quality summary scores and patient survey scores are positive, and most are statistically significant, the strength of the associations was weak, with the highest correlation coefficient reaching 0.18, and more than one-half were 0.11 or less. Correlations with clinical quality were highest for patient-reported access scores (telephone access 0.16, availability of urgent appointments 0.15, ability to book ahead 0.18, ability to see preferred doctor 0.17) and overall satisfaction (0.15). CONCLUSION: Although there are associations between clinical quality and measures of patient experience, the 2 domains of care quality remain predominantly distinct. The strongest correlations are observed between practice clinical quality and practice access, with very low correlations between clinical quality and interpersonal aspects of care. The quality of clinical care and the quality of interpersonal care should be considered separately to give an overall assessment of medical care.
PURPOSE: Clinical quality and patient experience are both widely used to evaluate the quality of health care, but the relationship between these 2 domains remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to examine this relationship using data from 2 established measures of quality in primary care in England. METHODS: Practice-level analyses (N = 7,759 practices in England) were conducted on measures of patient experience from the national General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS), and measures of clinical quality from the national pay-for-performance scheme (Quality and Outcomes Framework). Spearman's rank correlation and multiple linear regression were used on practice-level estimates. RESULTS: Although all the correlations between clinical quality summary scores and patient survey scores are positive, and most are statistically significant, the strength of the associations was weak, with the highest correlation coefficient reaching 0.18, and more than one-half were 0.11 or less. Correlations with clinical quality were highest for patient-reported access scores (telephone access 0.16, availability of urgent appointments 0.15, ability to book ahead 0.18, ability to see preferred doctor 0.17) and overall satisfaction (0.15). CONCLUSION: Although there are associations between clinical quality and measures of patient experience, the 2 domains of care quality remain predominantly distinct. The strongest correlations are observed between practice clinical quality and practice access, with very low correlations between clinical quality and interpersonal aspects of care. The quality of clinical care and the quality of interpersonal care should be considered separately to give an overall assessment of medical care.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical quality; health care; patient experience; quality indicators; quality of health care; technical quality of care
Authors: Tejal K Gandhi; E Cook Francis; Ann Louise Puopolo; Helen R Burstin; Jennifer S Haas; Troyen A Brennan Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Elizabeth Goldstein; William Lehrman; Katrin Hambarsoomians; Megan K Beckett; Laura Giordano Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Eric C Schneider; Michael Anastario; Esosa G Odigie; Richard Marshall; William H Rogers; Dana Gelb Safran Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-08-28 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Martin Roland; Marc Elliott; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; Josephine Barbiere; Richard A Parker; Patten Smith; Peter Bower; John Campbell Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-09-29
Authors: John Campbell; Patten Smith; Sonja Nissen; Peter Bower; Marc Elliott; Martin Roland Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2009-08-22 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Rebecca Anhang Price; Marc N Elliott; Alan M Zaslavsky; Ron D Hays; William G Lehrman; Lise Rybowski; Susan Edgman-Levitan; Paul D Cleary Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Willemijn L A Schäfer; Wienke G W Boerma; François G Schellevis; Peter P Groenewegen Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Sarah Stevens; Andrew R H Dalton; Robert I Griffiths; John L Campbell; Jose M Valderas Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-02-19 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Thomas E Cowling; Anthony A Laverty; Matthew J Harris; Hilary C Watt; Felix Greaves; Azeem Majeed Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 5.344