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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- The effect of a voucher incentive on a survey response rate in the clinical setting: a quasi-randomized controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Exploiting survey and online patient experience comments in general practice: validating a fine-tuned language model for automatic sentiment analysis.Family practice · 2026Article
- Impact of a Physician Communication Development Program on Patient Experience Scores.Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Assessing women's perspective of the quality of care of the childbirth experience at a tertiary care hospital in Egypt: An application of the WHO standards-based tool.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Observational
- Variation in the use of primary care-led investigations prior to a cancer diagnosis: analysis of the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- A perspective on the use of patient-reported experience and patient-reported outcome measures in ambulatory healthcare.Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2025Review
- 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 · 2024Review
- Feedback reports to the general practitioner (GP) on the patients' experiences: are GPs interested, and is this interest associated with GP factors and patient experience scores?Family practice · 2023Article
- Assessing Ethnic Inequalities in Diagnostic Interval of Common Cancers: A Population-Based UK Cohort Study.Cancers · 2022Article
- Patient experiences with general practitioners: psychometric performance of the generic PEQ-GP instrument among patients with chronic conditions.Family practice · 2022Article
- Preferences for healthcare services among hypertension patients in China: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Article
- Comparing the Attainment of the Patient's Medical Home Model across Regions in Three Canadian Provinces: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2021Article
- Primary care experience and remission of type 2 diabetes: a population-based prospective cohort study.Family practice · 2021Article
- Role of practices and Clinical Commissioning Groups in measures of patient experience: analysis of routine data.BMJ quality & safety · 2021Article
- Enhancing relational care through expressions of gratitude: insights from a historical case study of almoner-patient correspondence.Medical humanities · 2020Article
- Online patient feedback as a measure of quality in primary care: a multimethod study using correlation and qualitative analysis.BMJ open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.