ArticleThe patient2017
Development and Validation of a Cross-Country Hospital Patient Quality of Care Assessment Tool in Europe.
Article in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-Reported Experience Measures in Adult Inpatient Settings: A Systematic Review.Journal of nursing management · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient perceptions of quality of care (QoC) are directly linked with patient safety and clinical effectiveness. We need patient-designed QoC instruments that work across languages and countries to optimise studies across systems in this area. Few QoC measurement tools exist that assess all aspects of QoC from the patient perspective. This paper describes the development and validation of a comprehensive measure to assess patient perceptions of QoC that incorporates technical and interpersonal aspects of care and is grounded in the established Institute of Medicine (IOM) QoC framework.
designWe conducted a multi-country cross-sectional study.
methodsFollowing a literature review and patient focus groups, an expert panel generated questionnaire items. Following a pilot study, item numbers were reduced. The final questionnaire consisted of three sections: demographics, perceived QoC and one open-ended question. Data was collected from patients (n = 531) discharged from hospitals across seven countries in South East Europe (languages: Turkish, Greek, Portuguese, Romanian, Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian). Reliability and validity of the measure were assessed.
resultsConfirmatory factor analysis was used to compare various factor models of patient-perceived QoC. Good model fit was demonstrated for a two-factor model: communication and interpersonal care, and hospital facilities.
conclusionsThe ORCAB (Improving quality and safety in the hospital: The link between organisational culture, burnout and quality of care) Patient QoC questionnaire has been collaboratively and exhaustively developed between healthcare professionals and patients. It enables patient QoC data to be assessed in the context of the IOM pillars of quality, considering both technical and interpersonal dimensions of care. It represents an important first step in including the patient perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28523465What 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.