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 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 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 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 1. Is there evidence of subjects understanding of the instrument/assessment? | 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 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
 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 |