The study showed that both fulfilment of expectations and patient-reported experiences are distinct from but related to overall patient satisfaction. The most important predictors for overall patient satisfaction with hospitals are patient-reported experiences and fulfilment of expectations.

BackgroundQuestionnaires are commonly used to collect patient, or user, experiences with health care encounters; however, their adaption to specific target groups limits comparison between groups. We present the construction of a generic questionnaire (maximum of ten questions) for user evaluation across a range of health care services.MethodsBased on previous testing of six group-specific questionnaires, we first constructed a generic questionnaire with 23 items related to user experiences. All questions included a "not applicable" response option, as well as a follow-up question about the item's importance. Nine user groups from one health trust were surveyed. Seven groups received questionnaires by mail and two by personal distribution. Selection of core questions was based on three criteria: applicability (proportion "not applicable"), importance (mean scores on follow-up questions), and comprehensiveness (content coverage, maximum two items per dimension).Results1324 questionnaires were returned providing subsample sizes ranging from 52 to 323. Ten questions were excluded because the proportion of "not applicable" responses exceeded 20% in at least one user group. The number of remaining items was reduced to ten by applying the two other criteria. The final short questionnaire included items on outcome (2), clinician services (2), user involvement (2), incorrect treatment (1), information (1), organisation (1), and accessibility (1).ConclusionThe Generic Short Patient Experiences Questionnaire (GS-PEQ) is a short, generic set of questions on user experiences with specialist health care that covers important topics for a range of groups. It can be used alone or with other instruments in quality assessment or in research. The psychometric properties and the relevance of the GS-PEQ in other health care settings and countries need further evaluation.

BackgroundUser reported experiences and satisfaction are increasingly used as basis for quality indicators in the health sector. However, there is limited understanding of factors associated with user reported experiences and satisfaction with casualty clinics.MethodsA random sample of 542 patients that had contacted any of three casualty clinics from mid April to mid May 2008 was mailed a questionnaire. A reminder was sent to non-respondents after six weeks. Descriptive statistics for four user reported experiences scales and 20 single items are presented. Multivariate regression analysis was used to assess associations between background variables and user reported experiences, and between user reported experiences and user satisfaction.Results225 (41.5%) patients, carers and guardians returned a completed questionnaire. Users reported most positive experiences with the doctor services and the nursing services at the casualty clinics; on a scale from 0 to 100, where 100 is the best possible experience the doctor scale was 82 and the nursing scale 81. Users reported least positive experiences with the organization of the casualty clinic, with a scale score of 65. Self perceived health was associated with user satisfaction, while self perceived health and age were associated with user reported experiences with organization of the clinics. A range of user reported experience domains were related to user satisfaction, after controlling for socio-demographic variables, including experiences with doctor services at the clinics, organization of the clinics, information and self perceived incorrect treatment.ConclusionsUsers report positive experiences with the three casualty clinics, with organization as the aspect with largest improvement potential. The importance of age and health status for users' experiences and satisfaction with casualty clinics was shown, but a range of user reported experiences with the clinics were the most important predictors for user satisfaction.

The PEPC questionnaire includes important aspects of hospital care from the perspective of the parent. It has good evidence for internal consistency, test-retest reliability and validity and is recommended in surveys of parent experiences of paediatric inpatient care.

The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the Psychiatric Out-Patient Experiences Questionnaire (POPEQ). The instrument was developed following a literature review, patient interviews and pre-testing of questionnaire items. The POPEQ was administered as part of a postal survey of 15,422 adult outpatients attending Norwegian clinics; 6677 (43.3%) patients responded to the questionnaire. Items had low levels of missing data. Factor analysis showed that 11 widely applicable items contribute to a measure of overall experiences. Sub-dimensions include clinician interaction (six items) information (two items) and outcomes (three items). Item-total correlations ranged from 0.5 to 0.8. Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability estimates exceeded the criterion of 0.7; the majority were over 0.8 and total scores over 0.9. Construct validity was supported by the results of 128 tests. The POPEQ includes important aspects of patient experience for psychiatric outpatients and has excellent evidence for reliability and construct validity. The instrument is recommended for the measurement of psychiatric outpatient experiences.

Whether the patient felt that he/she had received the incorrect treatment had by far the strongest association with patient experiences. Future studies of patient experiences and satisfaction should include this variable. As found in previous research, patient experiences were significantly associated with age and health status.

The NORPEQ is a brief measure of patient experiences that covers important aspects of the healthcare encounter. It shows good evidence of reliability and validity and is relatively easy to apply alongside existing national surveys.

ObjectivesPatient experience questionnaires have been criticised owing to the lack of supporting psychometric evidence. The objective of this study was to describe the development and psychometric evaluation of the Cancer Patient Experiences Questionnaire (CPEQ) in Norway.DesignQuestionnaire development was based on a literature review of existing questionnaires, patient interviews, expert-group consultations, pretesting of questionnaire items and a national survey. Psychometric evaluation included exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and tests of internal consistency reliability and test–retest reliability.SettingData were collected using a postal survey of cancer patients attending 54 hospitals in all 4 health regions. The subjects were 14 227 adult cancer patients who had attended an outpatient clinic or who had been discharged from an inpatient ward. Patients with all types of cancer were included. Data quality, internal consistency reliability and construct validity were assessed.ResultsOf the 13 846 patients who received the CPEQ, 7212 (52%) responded. Exploratory factor analysis identified six scales of outpatient experiences relating to nurse contact, doctor contact, information, organisation, patient safety and contact with next of kin, and seven scales of inpatient experiences, with the addition of hospital standard to the aforementioned scales. All but two of the scales met the criterion of 0.70 for Cronbach's α testing, and test–retest correlations ranged from 0.57 to 0.85. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the interpretation of six and seven scales for outpatients and inpatients, respectively. Statistically significant associations based on explicit hypotheses provided evidence for the construct validity of the scales. One additional scale measuring the hospital level was identified (α=0.85).ConclusionsThe CPEQ is a self-report instrument that includes the most important aspects of patient experiences with cancer care at hospitals. The instrument was tested following a national survey in Norway; good evidence is provided herein for the internal consistency reliability, test–retest reliability and construct validity.