Skip to main content

Table 5 Results of additional aspects of utility

From: Instruments to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals: a systematic review

  HCAHPS QPP QPPS PPE-15 NHSIP SIPE HKIEQ PEQ NORPEQ I-PAHC PPQ
  F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R F R
Cost efficiency                       
 1. What are the number of observations (patients, raters, times) needed to reach the required level of reliability for the purpose of the instrument? ≥300 [20] Poor Not reported Poor Not reported Poor 330 per group [24] Poor Not Reported Poor Variable but >100 Poor 300–500 [45] Poor Not specified Poor Not specified Poor ≥230 [53] Poor Not specified Poor
 2. How long does an assessment take to complete? 8 min [8] Good 30 min [28] Good ≤15 min Excellent 12 min [42] Excellent 20 min (estimate) Good 20 min [46] Good 25 min [59] Good <30 min (estimate) Good >15 min (estimate) Excellent 15 min [53] Excellent <30 min (estimate) Good
 3. What are the administrative costs of completing the assessment? V large numbers and expertise [8] Poor Considerable [28] Fair Brief and easy scoring [27] Excellent Large no. and standardised data Fair Large no. and standardised Fair V large numbers and expertise Poor V large numbers and expertise Poor Considerable Fair Brief and simple scoring Good Interviewers required Fair Interviewer required [41] Fair
 4. What is the cost to complete a reliable sample? Extensive Poor Considerable Fair Minimal Good Considerable Fair Extensive Poor Extensive Poor Extensive Poor Considerable Fair Moderate Good Moderate Good Considerable Fair
Overall Rating POOR FAIR GOOD FAIR POOR POOR POOR FAIR GOOD GOOD FAIR
Acceptability                       
 1. Is there evidence of subjects understanding of the instrument/assessment? Yes [29,48] Excellent Yes [55] Excellent Yes [8] Excellent Yes [42] Excellent Yes [47] Excellent Yes [45] Excellent Yes [22] Excellent Yes [39] Excellent Yes [37] Excellent Yes [53] Excellent Yes [41] Excellent
 2. How many assessments are not completed? 25 % miss RR 47 % Good 13 % miss RR 68 % [55] Good 25 % miss RR 79 % [55] Good 29 % miss RR 68 % [42] Good No info RR 49 % [47] Good No info RR 50 % [13] Good 21 % miss RR 49 % [22] Good >10 % mis RR 53 % [39] Excellent 42.5 %mis RR 48 % [37] 85 % Excellent High No RR 95 % [53] Good 0 % miss RR 85 % [41] Excellent
 3. Has the instrument/assessment been tested in an appropriate context? Yes [26] Excellent Tested in simulation [55] Fair Yes [55] Good Yes [42] Excellent Yes [47] Excellent Yes [45] Excellent Yes [22] Excellent Yes [39] Excellent Yes Excellent Yes Excellent Yes Excellent
Overall Rating Good Fair Good Good Good Good Good Excellent Excellent Good Excellent
Educational impact                       
 1. Is there evidence of the instrument being used for its intended purpose? (i.e. if aim is to provide hospital ranking for patient selection, is there evidence that the results are influencing patient choice?) Evidence of purpose [20] Excellent Discussion of purpose but no evidence [55] Fair Discussion of purpose but no evidence [27] Fair Explanatory use for national comparison Good Clear evidence of purpose [47] Excellent Explanatory use for national comparison [45] Good Explanatory use for national benchmarking [22] Good Clear evidence of purpose [39] Excellent Explanatory use described [37] Good Explanatory use described [53] Good Explanatory use described [41] Good
 2. Is the scoring system easily translated or available in an easy to use format? Easy scoring Excellent Easy scoring Excellent Easy scoring Excellent Easily scored Excellent Statistical knowledge Fair Easy colour coding Excellent Statistical expertise Fair Not explained Poor Easy scoring Excellent Easy scoring Excellent Easy scoring Excellent
 3. Can the results be readily used for action where necessary? Available but not at unit/team level Good Results actionable at local level Excellent Results actionable at local level Excellent Adjustments needed (Jenkinson comparison) Fair Expertise required to enable local action Fair Results at hospital level Good Results at hospital level Good No information Poor Readily available Excellent Readily available Excellent Readily available Excellent
Overall Rating Good Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Poor Good Good Good
  1. F findings, R ratings