IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v10y2017i6d10.1007_s40271-017-0246-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Validation of a Cross-Country Hospital Patient Quality of Care Assessment Tool in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda Villiers-Tuthill

    (Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland)

  • Karolina Doulougeri

    (University of Macedonia)

  • Hannah McGee

    (Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland)

  • Anthony Montgomery

    (University of Macedonia)

  • Efharis Panagopoulou

    (Aristotle University)

  • Karen Morgan

    (Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
    Perdana University)

Abstract

Background Patient 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. Design We conducted a multi-country cross-sectional study. Methods Following 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. Results Confirmatory 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. Conclusions The 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda Villiers-Tuthill & Karolina Doulougeri & Hannah McGee & Anthony Montgomery & Efharis Panagopoulou & Karen Morgan, 2017. "Development and Validation of a Cross-Country Hospital Patient Quality of Care Assessment Tool in Europe," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(6), pages 753-761, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0246-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-017-0246-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-017-0246-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-017-0246-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Brambilla & Jan Marvin Apel & Inga Schmidt-Ross & Maddalena Buffoli & Stefano Capolongo, 2022. "Testing of a Multiple Criteria Assessment Tool for Healthcare Facilities Quality and Sustainability: The Case of German Hospitals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-25, December.

    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:spr:patien:v:10:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s40271-017-0246-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.