BackgroundImproving and sustaining the quality of hospital care is an international challenge. Patient experience data can be used to target improvement and research. However, the use of patient experience data has been hindered by confusion over multiple instruments (questionnaires) with unknown psychometric testing and utility.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and utility critique of questionnaires to measure patient experience of healthcare quality in hospitals. Databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychological Information (PsychINFO) and Web of Knowledge until end of November 2013) and grey literature were scrutinised. Inclusion criteria were applied to all records with a 10 % sample independently checked. Critique included (1) application of COSMIN checklists to assess the quality of each psychometric study, (2) critique of psychometric results of each study using Terwee et al. criteria and (3) development and critique of additional aspects of utility for each instrument. Two independent reviewers completed each critique. Synthesis included combining findings in a utility matrix.ResultsWe obtained 1157 records. Of these, 26 papers measuring patient experience of hospital quality of care were identified examining 11 international instruments. We found evidence of extensive theoretical/development work. The quality of methods and results was variable but mostly of a high standard. Additional aspects of utility found that (1) cost efficiency was mostly poor, due to the resource necessary to obtain reliable samples; (2) acceptability of most instruments was good and (3) educational impact was variable, with evidence on the ease of use, for approximately half of the questionnaires.ConclusionsSelecting the right patient experience instrument depends on a balanced consideration of aspects of utility, aided by the matrix. Data required for high stakes purposes requires a high degree of reliability and validity, while those used for quality improvement may tolerate lower levels of reliability in favour of other aspects of utility (educational impact, cost and acceptability).Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42013006754Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo estimate obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England and compare prevalence with those working outside of the health services.DesignCross-sectional study based on data from 5 years (2008–2012) of the nationally representative Health Survey for England.SettingEngland.Participants20 103 adults aged 17–65 years indicating they were economically active at the time of survey classified into four occupational groups: nurses (n=422), other healthcare professionals (n=412), unregistered care workers (n=736) and individuals employed in non-health-related occupations (n=18 533).Outcome measurePrevalence of obesity defined as body mass index ≥30.0 with 95% CIs and weighted to reflect the population.ResultsObesity prevalence was high across all occupational groups including: among nurses (25.1%, 95% CI 20.9% to 29.4%); other healthcare professionals (14.4%, 95% CI 11.0% to 17.8%); non-health-related occupations (23.5%, 95% CI 22.9% to 24.1%); and unregistered care workers who had the highest prevalence of obesity (31.9%, 95% CI 28.4% to 35.3%). A logistic regression model adjusted for sociodemographic composition and survey year indicated that, compared with nurses, the odds of being obese were significantly lower for other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.75) and higher for unregistered care workers (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.93). There was no significant difference in obesity prevalence between nurses and people working in non-health-related occupations (aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.18).ConclusionsHigh obesity prevalence among nurses and unregistered care workers is concerning as it increases the risks of musculoskeletal conditions and mental health conditions that are the main causes of sickness absence in health services. Further research is required to better understand the reasons for high obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England to inform interventions to support individuals to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

Prevalence of overweight and obesity among Scottish nurses is worryingly high, and significantly higher than those in other healthcare professionals and non-health related occupations. High prevalence of overweight and obesity potentially harms nurses' own health and hampers the effectiveness of nurses' health promotion role. Interventions are therefore urgently required to address overweight and obesity among the Scottish nursing workforce.

BackgroundInflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic gastrointestinal condition with a relapsing disease course. Managing the relapsing nature of the disease causes daily stress for IBD patients; thus, IBD patients report higher rates of depression and anxiety than the general population.Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) is an evidence-based psychological program designed to help manage depressive and stress symptoms. There has been no randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the use of MBCT in IBD patients.The purpose of this pilot study is to test the trial methodology and assess the feasibility of conducting a large RCT testing the effectiveness of MBCT in IBD.MethodsThe IBD patients, who were recruited from gastroenterology outpatient clinics at two Scottish NHS Boards, were randomly allocated to an MBCT intervention group (n = 22) or a wait-list control group (n = 22). The MBCT intervention consisted of 16 hours of structured group training over 8 consecutive weeks plus guided home practice and follow-up sessions. The wait-list group received a leaflet entitled ‘Staying well with IBD’. All participants completed a baseline, post-intervention and 6-month follow up assessment. The key objectives were to assess patient eligibility and recruitment/dropout rate, to calculate initial estimates of parameters to the proposed outcome measures (depression, anxiety, disease activity, dispositional mindfulness and quality of life) and to estimate sample size for a future large RCT.ResultsIn total, 350 patients were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 44 eligible patients consented to participate. The recruitment rate was 15 %, with main reasons for ineligibility indicated as follows: non-response to invitation, active disease symptoms, planned surgery or incompatibility with group schedule. There was a higher than expected dropout rate of 44 %. Initial estimates of parameters to the proposed outcomes at post-intervention and follow-up showed a significant improvement of scores in the MBCT group when compared to the control for depression, trait anxiety and dispositional mindfulness. The sample-size calculation was guided by estimates of clinically important effects in depression scores.ConclusionsThis pilot study suggests that a multicentre randomized clinical trial testing the effectiveness of MBCT for IBD patients is feasible with some changes to the protocol. Improvement in depression, trait anxiety and dispositional mindfulness scores are promising when coupled with patients reporting a perceived improvement of their quality of life.Trial registrationISRCTN27934462. 2 August 2013.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0909-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundImproving and sustaining the quality of care in hospitals is an intractable and persistent challenge. The patients’ experience of the quality of hospital care can provide insightful feedback to enable clinical teams to direct quality improvement efforts in areas where they are most needed. Yet, patient experience is often marginalised in favour of aspects of care that are easier to quantify (for example, waiting time). Attempts to measure patient experience have been hindered by a proliferation of instruments using various outcome measures with varying degrees of psychometric development and testing.Methods/DesignWe will conduct a systematic review and utility critique of instruments used to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals. The databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychological Information (Psych Info) and Web of Knowledge will be searched from inception until end November 2013. Search strategies will include the key words; patient, adult, hospital, secondary care, questionnaires, instruments, health care surveys, experience, satisfaction and patient opinion in various combinations. We will contact experts in the field of measuring patient experience and scrutinise all secondary references. A reviewer will apply an inclusion criteria scale to all titles and abstracts. A second reviewer will apply the inclusion criteria scale to a random 10% selection. Two reviewers will independently evaluate the methodological rigour of the testing of the instruments using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. Disagreements will be resolved through consensus. Instruments will be critiqued and grouped using van der Vleuten’s utility index. We will present a narrative synthesis on the utility of all instruments and make recommendations for instrument selection in practice.DiscussionThis systematic review of the utility of instruments to measure patient experience of hospital quality care will aid clinicians, managers and policy makers to select an instrument fit for purpose. Importantly, appropriate instrument selection will provide a mechanism for patients’ voices to be heard on the quality of care they receive in hospitals.PROSPERO registration CRD42013006754.