Examining patient perceptions of quality care in general practice: comparison of quantitative and qualitative methods.

BACKGROUND: The consultation satisfaction questionnaire and surgery satisfaction questionnaire, and the critical incident technique have been identified as examples of, respectively, quantitative and qualitative (interview) techniques with considerable theoretical merit regarding the measurement of patients' views in a general practice context. AIM: This study set out to assess these techniques in terms of ease of administration and analysis, respondent acceptability, and the extent to which the information provided was useful to the practitioner/practice manager, as well as validity.
METHOD: Patients from three practices completed the interview and questionnaires. Data were provided for each practice giving their own results as well as data from the other two practices and the results of previous research.
RESULTS: Both methods were, in the main, received positively by general practitioners, managers and patients. Patient responses to the questionnaires in general followed predictable patterns, variations from which suggested practice-specific problems.
CONCLUSION: There are caveats regarding the use and interpretation of both methods, of which potential users should be aware. This is particularly the case with the consultation satisfaction questionnaire, scores on which, it is suggested, may be on a downward trend over time. It is possible that results from the consultation satisfaction questionnaire/surgery satisfaction questionnaire could be merely demoralizing for practice staff in some instances. Other research supports this notion of demoralization which, although unproven, would reduce the instrument's potential for comparison between studies, and which is, therefore, a finding which requires further attention. Increasing patient expectations are implicated in this.