ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2017
Are inspectors' assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England.
Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Mediators of change in healthcare organisations subject to external assessment: a systematic review with narrative synthesis.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Implementing quality and safety regulations in residential disability services: a qualitative interview study.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Regulatory Maternity Unit Ratings With Clinical Outcomes and Practice Measures: An Observational Study Using Routinely Collected Data.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025Observational
- The measurement and improvement of maternity service performance through inspection and rating: An observational study of maternity services in acute hospitals in England.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2020Observational
- Certification as support for resilience? Behind the curtains of a certification body - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Do performance indicators predict regulator ratings of healthcare providers? Cross-sectional study of acute hospitals in England.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2020Article
- Exploring hospital certification processes from the certification body's perspective - a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Using quality indicators to predict inspection ratings: cross-sectional study of general practices in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- How hospital survey teams function.Journal of health organization and management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The credibility of a regulator could be threatened if stakeholders perceive that assessments of performance made by its inspectors are unreliable. Yet there is little published research on the reliability of inspectors' assessments of health care organizations' services. Objectives We investigated the inter-rater reliability of assessments made by inspectors inspecting acute hospitals in England during the piloting of a new regulatory model implemented by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) during 2013 and 2014. Multi-professional teams of inspectors rated service provision on a four-point scale for each of five domains: safety; effectiveness; caring; responsiveness; and leadership. Methods In an online survey, we asked individual inspectors to assign a domain and a rating to each of 10 vignettes of service information extracted from CQC inspection reports. We used these data to simulate the ratings that might be produced by teams of inspectors. We also observed inspection teams in action, and interviewed inspectors and staff from hospitals that had been inspected. Results Levels of agreement varied substantially from vignette to vignette. Characteristics such as professional background explained only a very small part of the variation. Overall, agreement was higher on ratings than on domains, and for groups of inspectors compared with individual inspectors. A number of potential causes of disagreement were identified, such as differences regarding the weight that should be given to contextual factors and general uncertainty about interpreting the rating and domain categories. Conclusion Groups of inspectors produced more reliable assessments than individual inspectors, and there is evidence to support the utility of appropriate discussions between inspectors in improving reliability. The reliability of domain allocations was lower than for ratings. It is important to define categories and rating levels clearly, and to train inspectors in their use. Further research is needed to replicate these results now that the model has been fully implemented, and to understand better the impact that inspector uncertainty and disagreement may have on published CQC ratings.
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.