Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients' survey data for general practices and individual doctors.
MetadataShow full item record
OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice. DESIGN: Analysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. SETTING: Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey. PARTICIPANTS: 7721 of 15,172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models. RESULTS: After control for differences in patients' age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregating patients' ratings of doctors' communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to "screen" for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.
Place of Publication
The following license files are associated with this item:
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Factors affecting patients' trust and confidence in GPs: evidence from the English national GP patient survey. Croker, JE; Swancutt, DR; Roberts, MJ; Abel, GA; Roland, M; Campbell, JL (EnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEngland, 2013-05-28)OBJECTIVES: Patients' trust in general practitioners (GPs) is fundamental to effective clinical encounters. Associations between patients' trust and their perceptions of communication within the consultation have been ...
The cost-effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia vs. standard care in patients presenting to the emergency department in pain, who are subsequently admitted to hospital. Pritchard, C; Smith, JE; Creanor, S; Squire, R; Barton, A; Benger, J; Cocking, L; Ewings, P; Rockett, M; PASTIES writing group (EnglandEngland, 2017-05-26)The clinical effectiveness of patient-controlled analgesia has been demonstrated in a variety of settings. However, patient-controlled analgesia is rarely utilised in the emergency department. The aim of this study was ...
PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)--patient controlled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with pain from traumatic injuries: randomised trial. Smith, JE; Rockett, M; S, SC; Squire, R; Hayward, C; Ewings, P; Barton, A; Pritchard, C; Eyre, V; Cocking, L; Benger, J; PASTIES Research Team (EnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEnglandEngland, 2015-06-21)OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries. DESIGN: Pragmatic, ...