Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25389136›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014

Understanding high and low patient experience scores in primary care: analysis of patients' survey data for general practices and individual doctors.

Martin J Roberts, John L Campbell, Gary A Abel, Antoinette F Davey, Natasha L Elmore, Inocencio Maramba, Mary Carter, Marc N Elliott, Martin O Roland, Jenni A Burt

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Martin J RobertsUniversity of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
John L CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK john.campbell@exeter.ac.uk.
Gary A AbelCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
Antoinette F DaveyUniversity of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
Natasha L ElmoreCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
Inocencio MarambaUniversity of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
Mary CarterUniversity of Exeter Medical School, St Lukes Campus, Exeter EX1 2LU, UK.
Marc N ElliottRAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA.
Martin O RolandCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.
Jenni A BurtCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, Forvie Site, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Box 113 Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice.

designAnalysis of postal survey of patients' experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices.

settingTwenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey.

participants7721 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 measureScore 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.

resultsAfter 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.

conclusionsAggregating 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.

Indexed as

Patient Outcome AssessmentAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAppointments and SchedulesCommunicationFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityHumansLinear ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID25389136
PMCPMC4230029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.