IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0187012.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Secondary analysis of hospital patient experience scores across England’s National Health Service – How much has improved since 2005?

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Honeyford
  • Felix Greaves
  • Paul Aylin
  • Alex Bottle

Abstract

Objective: To examine trends in patient experience and consistency between hospital trusts and settings. Methods: Observational 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. Results: Overall 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. Conclusions: The 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Honeyford & Felix Greaves & Paul Aylin & Alex Bottle, 2017. "Secondary analysis of hospital patient experience scores across England’s National Health Service – How much has improved since 2005?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-11, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0187012
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187012
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187012&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0187012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0187012. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.