Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep 29;17(1):685.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2614-4.

Evaluating patient experiences in decentralised acute care using the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire; methodological and clinical findings

Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen  1 , Vigdis Abrahamsen Grøndahl  2 , Waleed Ghanima  3 , Espen Storeheier  4 , Anders Schönbeck  5 , Thor-Asbjørn Løken  6 , Nina Carine Mikkelsen Bakken  7 , Guro Steine Letting  8 , Réné Holst  9 , Lars-Petter Jelsness-Jørgensen  2
Affiliations

Evaluating patient experiences in decentralised acute care using the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire; methodological and clinical findings

Ann-Chatrin Linqvist Leonardsen et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Decentralised acute care services have, through the establishment of municipality acute wards (MAWs), been launched in Norway. The aim is to provide treatment for patients who otherwise would need hospitalisation. Currently there is a lack of studies investigating patient experiences in such services. The aims of this study were therefore to a) translate and validate the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15) in Norwegian, and b) assess patient experiences in decentralised acute care, and potential factors associated with these experiences.

Methods: Patients were recruited from five municipal acute wards in southeastern Norway during the period from June 2014 to June 2015. Data on socio-demographics, length of stay and comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)) were collected. Patients completed the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15) and the EuroQOL 5-dimension, 3-level version. Convergent validity of the PPE-15 was assessed by correlation of items in PPE-15 and the Nordic Patient Experience Questionnaire (NORPEQ). A retest of the PPE-15 was performed in a subgroup of patients approximately 3 weeks after baseline assessment. Test-retest agreement was assessed with Cohens' unweighted Kappa.

Results: A total of 479 patients responded, median age 78.0 years and 41.8% men. A total of 68 patients participated in the retest. Testing of convergent validity revealed an overall weak to moderate correlation. Kappa statistics showed from fair to good test-retest agreement. Most problems were related to continuity and transition, while fewest problems were related to respect for patient preferences. A higher Charlson comorbidity score was the only variable that was negatively associated with patient experience.

Conclusion: Patients reported problems in several items of the PPE-15 after discharge from decentralised acute wards. The findings from the current study may be helpful for planning ways to improve quality of care, e.g., by providing feedback to healthcare personnel or by using patient experience as a quality indicator.

Keywords: Acute healthcare; Comorbidity; Decentralised; Patient experiences; Primary care; Quality; Questionnaire; Self-reported health; Socio-demographics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was performed according to the principles stated in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC) in Norway (ref. no 2013/1276/REK sør-øst D) and the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) (ref. no 38585). Written, informed consent was obtained from all of the study participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. The patient experience book. A collection of the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement guidance and support. Coventry: University of Warwick Science Park; 2013.
    1. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001570. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rathert C, Brandt J, Williams ES. Putting the ‘patient’ in patient safety: a qualitative study of consumer experiences. Health Expect. 2012;15(3):327–336. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00685.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bjertnaes O, Sjetne I, Iversen H. Overall patient satisfaction with hospitals: effects of patient-reported experiences and fulfilment of expectations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(1):39–46. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000137. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Garratt A. National and cross-national surveys of patient experiences. Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten [Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services]; 2008. - PubMed

Publication types