Tools
Tools
Hankins, Matthew, Fraser, A., Hodson, A., Hooley, C. and Smith, Helen (2007) Measuring patient satisfaction for the Quality and Outcomes Framework. British Journal of General Practice, 57 (542). pp. 608-614. ISSN 0960-1643
Full text not available from this repository.Abstract
The general medical services (GMS) contract Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) awards up to 70 points for measuring patient satisfaction with either the Improving Practices Questionnaire (IPQ) or the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire (GPAQ). The usefulness of data collected depends crucially on the validity and reliability of the measurement instrument. The literature was reviewed to assess the validity and reliability of these questionnaires. The literature was searched for peer-review publications that assessed the reliability and validity of the IPQ and GPAQ, using online literature databases and hand-searching of references up to June 2006. One paper claimed to assess the validity and reliability of the IPQ. No paper reported the reliability and validity of the GPAQ, but three papers assessed an earlier version (the GPAS). No published evidence could be found that the IPQ, GPAQ, or GPAS have been validated against external criteria. The GPAS was found to have acceptable reliability and test-retest reliability. Neither of the instruments mandated by the GMS contract has been formally assessed for reliability: their reproducibility remains unknown. The validation of the two questionnaires approved by the QOF to assess patient satisfaction with general practice appears to be suboptimal. It is recommended that future patient experience surveys are piloted for validity and reliability before being implemented widely.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Keywords: | patient survey; questionnaire; quality and outcomes framework. |
| Schools and Departments: | Brighton and Sussex Medical School > Primary Care and Public Health |
| Depositing User: | Jane Harle |
| Date Deposited: | 20 Oct 2008 |
| Last Modified: | 15 Nov 2012 13:49 |
| URI: | http://srodev.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/2015 |
| Google Scholar: | 20 Citations |