ArticlePloS one2017
Secondary analysis of hospital patient experience scores across England's National Health Service - How much has improved since 2005?
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the impact of educational TV program intervention on transforming elderly patients, promote patient involvement, and mitigating violence toward physicians: a randomized controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- A decade of outsourcing in health and social care in England: What was it meant to achieve?Social policy & administration · 2024Article
- Outsourcing health-care services to the private sector and treatable mortality rates in England, 2013-20: an observational study of NHS privatisation.The Lancet. Public health · 2022Observational
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine trends in patient experience and consistency between hospital trusts and settings.
methodsObservational study of publicly available patient experience surveys of three hospital settings (inpatients (IP), accident and emergency (A&E) and outpatients (OP)) of 130 acute NHS hospital trusts in England between 2004/05 and 2014/15.
resultsOverall patient experience has been good, showing modest improvements over time across the three hospital settings. Individual questions with the biggest improvement across all three settings are cleanliness (IP: +7.1, A&E: +6.5, OP: +4.7) and information about danger signals (IP: +3.8, A&E: +3.9, OP: +4.0). Trust performance has been consistent over time: 71.5% of trusts ranked in the same cluster for more than five years. There is some consistency across settings, especially between outpatients and inpatients. The lowest-scoring questions, regarding information at discharge, are the same in all years and all settings.
conclusionsThe greatest improvement across all three settings has been for cleanliness, which has seen national policies and targets. Information about danger signals and medication side-effects showed least consistency across settings and scores have remained low over time, despite information about danger signals showing a big increase in score. Patient experience of aspects of access and waiting have declined, as has experience of discharge delay, likely reflecting known increases in pressure on England's NHS.
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.