|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport eTheses|
|Title:||Measuring the Patient Experience of Hospital Quality of Care|
quality of care
|Publisher:||University of Stirling|
|Citation:||Beattie M, Shepherd A, Howieson B, 'Do the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) dimensions of quality capture the current meaning of quality in health care? - An integrative review'. Journal of Research in Nursing 2012; 18 (4), 288-304. DOI: 10.1177/1744987112440568|
Beattie M, Atherton I, McLennan B, Lauder W, 'Compassion or speed, which is a more accurate indicator of healthcare quality in the emergency department from the patients’ perspective?'. International Journal of Person Centered Medicine 2012; 2 (4), 647-655.
Beattie M, Lauder W, Atherton I, Murphy DJ, 'Instruments to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals: a systematic review protocol'. Systematic Reviews 2014; 3:4. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-4
Beattie M, Murphy DJ, Atherton I, Lauder W, 'Instruments to measure patient experience of health care quality in hospitals: a systematic review'. Systematic Reviews 2015; 4:97. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0089-0
Beattie M, Shepherd A, Lauder W, Atherton I, Cowie J, Murphy DJ, 'Development and preliminary psychometric properties of the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT)'. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e010101. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015- 010101
|Abstract:||The primary motivation of this PhD by publication has been the apparent disconnect between the metrics of hospital quality of care at national and board level and patients’ experiences. Exploration of the gap led to the realisation of two key points. Firstly, the concept of healthcare quality continually evolves. Secondly, the NHS Scotland Measurement Framework does not include a measure of patient experience at the microsystem level (e.g. hospital ward). This is needed to counterbalance easier to obtain metrics of quality (e.g. waiting times). Resource tends to follow measurement. Papers 1 and 2 were exploratory, investigating theoretical and practical aspects of measuring quality of hospital care at the clinical microsystem level. With the associated Chapters, they highlighted both the necessity and the possibility of measuring the patient experience at the micro level of the healthcare system. They also drew attention to the inadequacy of “satisfaction” as a metric, leading to closer examination of “experience” as the decisive metric. This required the development of a systematic review protocol (Paper Three), then a systematic review (Paper Four). The review (Paper Four) examined the utility (validity, reliability, cost efficiency, acceptability and educational impact) of questionnaires to measure the patient experience of hospital quality of care, with a newly devised matrix tool. Findings highlighted a gap for an instrument with high utility for use at the clinical microsystem level of healthcare. Paper Five presents the development and preliminary psychometric testing of such an instrument; the Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool (CEFIT). The thesis provides, as well as the matrix tool and CEFIT, theoretical and methodological contributions in the field of healthcare quality. It contributes to an aspiration that the patient’s voice can be heard and acknowledged, in order to direct improvements in the quality of hospital care.|
|Type:||Thesis or Dissertation|
|Michelle Beattie Thesis MASTER FINAL.pdf||FINAL Thesis||35.18 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.