ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2017
Closing the patient experience chasm: A two-level validation of the Consumer Quality Index Inpatient Hospital Care.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Adult Inpatient Settings: A Systematic Review.Journal of nursing management · 2024Pooled it
- Inpatients' Experiences and Associated Factors at a Tertiary Hospital in Vietnam: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Perceived Care Quality of Frontline Clinical Nurses in China and Its Predictors: A Mixed-Methods Study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Article
- Development and Psychometric Validation of Perioperative Patient-Reported Experience Measures for Nursing Care in Surgical Patients.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
- The first steps in the development of a cancer-specific patient-reported experience measure item bank (PREM-item bank): towards dynamic evaluation of experiences.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Review
- A methodological framework for evaluating transitions in acute care services in the Netherlands to achieve Triple Aim.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Article
- Measuring discharge quality based on elderly patients' experiences with discharge conversation: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open quality · 2019Article
- Discharge care quality in hospitalised elderly patients: Extended validation of the Discharge Care Experiences Survey.PloS one · 2019Article
- Article
- Closing the patient experience chasm: A two-level validation of the Consumer Quality Index Inpatient Hospital Care.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- The Value of Merging Medical Data from Ambulance Services and General Practice Cooperatives Using Triple Aim Outcomes.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of patients' health care experiences is central to measuring patient-centred care. However, different instruments tend to be used at the hospital or departmental level but rarely both, leading to a lack of standardization of patient experience measures.
objectiveTo validate the Consumer Quality Index (CQI) Inpatient Hospital Care for use on both department and hospital levels.
designUsing cross-sectional observational data, we investigated the internal validity of the questionnaire using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), and the generalizability of the questionnaire for use at the department and hospital levels using generalizability theory. SETTING AND
participants22924 adults hospitalized for ≥24 hours between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2014 in 23 Dutch hospitals (515 department evaluations). MAIN VARIABLE: CQI Inpatient Hospital Care questionnaire.
resultsCFA results showed a good fit on individual level (CFI=0.96, TLI=0.95, RMSEA=0.04), which was comparable between specialties. When scores were aggregated to the department level, the fit was less desirable (CFI=0.83, TLI=0.81, RMSEA=0.06), and there was a significant overlap between communication with doctors and explanation of treatment subscales. Departments and hospitals explained ≤5% of total variance in subscale scores. In total, 4-8 departments and 50 respondents per department are needed to reliably evaluate subscales rated on a 4-point scale, and 10 departments with 100-150 respondents per department for binary subscales. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe CQI Inpatient Hospital Care is a valid and reliable questionnaire to evaluate inpatient experiences in Dutch hospitals provided sufficient sampling is done. Results can facilitate meaningful comparisons and guide quality improvement activities in individual departments and hospitals.
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.