Objective To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design and setting Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Participants Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Main outcome measure Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. Results 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Conclusions Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

Objectives-To gain population norms for the short form 36 health survey questionnaire (SF36) in a large community sample and to explore the questionnaire's internal consistency and validity.Design-Postal survey by using a booklet containing the SF 36 and several other items concerned with lifestyles and illness.Setting--The sample was drawn from computerised registers ofthe family health services authorities for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire

No abstract

Creation of a platform of tools to provide information to doctors and patients should be the first step in giving patients choice about their treatment, say Glyn Elwyn and colleagues.

BackgroundThe original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well-documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it.MethodsOur review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported.ResultsKey features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; ‘alpha’ testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; ‘beta’ testing in ‘real life’ conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development.ConclusionsThe case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing.

This small set of questions could be incorporated into in-patient surveys in different settings, enabling the comparison of hospital performance and the establishment of national or international benchmarks.

No abstract

Objective:To determine what aspects of healthcare provision are most likely to influence satisfaction with care and willingness to recommend hospital services to others and, secondly, to explore the extent to which satisfaction is a meaningful indicator of patient experience of healthcare services. Design: Postal survey of a sample of patients who underwent a period of inpatient care. Patients were asked to evaluate their overall experience of this episode of care and to complete the Picker Inpatient Survey questionnaire on specific aspects of their care. Sample: Patients aged 18 and over presenting at five hospitals within one NHS trust in Scotland. Method: 3592 questionnaires were mailed to patients' homes within 1 month of discharge from hospital during a 12 month period. Two reminders were sent to non-responders; 2249 (65%) questionnaires were returned. Results: Almost 90% of respondents indicated that they were satisfied with their period of inpatient care. Age and overall self-assessed health were only weakly associated with satisfaction. A multiple linear regression indicated that the major determinants of patient satisfaction were physical comfort, emotional support, and respect for patient preferences. However, many patients who reported their satisfaction with the care they received also indicated problems with their inpatient care as measured on the Picker Inpatient Survey; 55% of respondents who rated their inpatient episode as "excellent" indicated problems on 10% of the issues measured on the Picker questionnaire. Discussion: The evidence suggests that patient satisfaction scores present a limited and optimistic picture. Detailed questions about specific aspects of patients' experiences are likely to be more useful for monitoring the performance of various hospital departments and wards and could point to ways in which delivery of health care could be improved.