Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/23410
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorLauder, William-
dc.contributor.advisorAtherton, Iain-
dc.contributor.advisorHubbard, Gill-
dc.contributor.authorBeattie, Michelle-
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-29T15:43:58Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-29T15:43:58Z-
dc.date.issued2016-03-26-
dc.identifier.citationBeattie 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-
dc.identifier.citationBeattie 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.-
dc.identifier.citationBeattie 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-
dc.identifier.citationBeattie 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-
dc.identifier.citationBeattie 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-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/23410-
dc.description.abstractThe 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.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherUniversity of Stirlingen_GB
dc.rightsPaper one: The publisher has granted permission for the this article to be made freely available in this thesis. Full citation must be made to the original SAGE publication.-
dc.rightsPaper two: Author is free to use this article in this repository.-
dc.rightsPapers three and four: These articles are published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.-
dc.rightsPaper five: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/-
dc.subjectquality improvementen_GB
dc.subjecthospitalen_GB
dc.subjectquality of careen_GB
dc.subjectpatient experienceen_GB
dc.subjectmeasurementen_GB
dc.subject.lcshHospital careen_GB
dc.subject.lcshHospital patients Services foren_GB
dc.titleMeasuring the Patient Experience of Hospital Quality of Careen_GB
dc.typeThesis or Dissertationen_GB
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen_GB
dc.type.qualificationnameDoctor of Nursingen_GB
dc.contributor.funderNoneen_GB
dc.author.emailmichelle.beattie28@gmail.comen_GB
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport eTheses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Michelle Beattie Thesis MASTER FINAL.pdfFINAL Thesis35.18 MBAdobe PDFView/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 library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.