How can patient experience scores be used to predict quality inspection ratings? A retrospective cross-sectional study of national primary care datasets in the UK

Author:

Tallett AmyORCID,Poots Alan JORCID,Graham ChrisORCID,Peters MicheleORCID,Corbett Rory,Sizmur SteveORCID,Forder JulienORCID

Abstract

ObjectivesThe relationship between patient feedback in the General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) and Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections of practices was investigated to understand whether there is an association between patient views and regulator ratings of quality. The specific aims were to understand whether patients’ self-reported experiences of primary care can predict CQC inspection ratings of GP practices by: (i) Measuring the association between GPPS results and CQC inspection ratings of GP practices; (ii) Building a predictive model of GP practice quality ratings that use GPPS results; and (iii) Evaluating the predictive model for risk stratification.DesignRetrospective analysis of routinely collected data using decision tree modelling.SettingPrimary care: GP practices in England.Primary and secondary outcome measuresGPPS scores and GP practice CQC inspection ratings during 2018.ResultsMost GP practices (72%, 974/1350) were rated as ‘Good’ overall by CQC. Simply assuming that all practices will be rated as ‘Good’ results in a correct prediction 72% of the time, and it was not possible to improve on this overall level of predictive accuracy using decision tree modelling (correct in 73% of cases). However, a set of GPPS questions were found to have value in identifying practices at elevated risk of a poor inspection rating.ConclusionsAlthough there were some associations between GPPS data and CQC inspection ratings, there were limitations to the use of GPPS data for predictive analysis. This is a likely result of the majority of CQC inspections of GPs resulting in a ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ rating. However, some GPPS questions were found to have value in identifying practices at higher risk of an ‘Inadequate’ or ‘Requires Improvement’ rating, and this may be valuable for surveillance purposes. For example, the CQC could use key questions from the survey to target inspection planning.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference35 articles.

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . Crossing the global quality chasm: improving health care worldwide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2018.

2. Dixon J , Spencelayh E , Howells A , et al . Indicators of quality of care in general practices in England. an independent review for the Secretary of state for health. health Foundation, London, 2015. Available: https://www.health.org.uk/publications/indicators-of-quality-of-care-in-general-practices-in-england [Accessed 25 Jul 2019].

3. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development . Caring for quality in health: lessons learnt from 15 reviews of health care quality, 2017. Available: https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Caring-for-Quality-in-Health-Final-report.pdf [Accessed 15 Sep 2020].

4. Department of Health . High quality care for all; NHS next stage review final report. London: department of health, 2008. Available: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228836/7432.pdf [Accessed 11 Sep 2019].

5. NHS digital: about the NHS outcomes framework, 2019. Available: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/ci-hub/nhs-outcomes-framework [Accessed 16 Oct 2019].

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3