Comparison of patients' assessments of the quality of stroke care with audit findings

Quality and Safety in Health Care

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 450-455

  Howell, Esther ^a   Graham, Chris ^a   Hoffman, A ^b   Lowe, D ^b   McKevitt, Christopher ^c   Reeves, Rachel ^d   Rudd, A G ^b  

^a PICKER INSTITUTE EUROPE   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS   (United Kingdom)

^c KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d King's College London ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DEMOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SERVICE; HEALTH SURVEY; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; STROKE; STROKE PATIENT;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ENGLAND; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HOSPITAL UNITS; HOSPITALS, PUBLIC; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL AUDIT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; SELF ASSESSMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); SENTINEL SURVEILLANCE; STATE MEDICINE; STROKE;

EID: 37749048005     PISSN: 14753898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2006.022079     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. National Audit Office. Reducing brain damage: faster access to better stroke care. London: The Stationery Office, 2005.
2. Department of Health. National service framework for older people. London: Department of Health, 2001.
3. Royal College of Physicians. National clinical guidelines for stroke, 2nd edn. Prepared by the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. London: RCP, 2004.
4. Royal College of Physicians. Notional Sentinel Stroke Audit 2004 (concise report). Prepared on behalf of the Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. London: RCP, 2005.
5. Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Cochrane Review). In: Cochrane Library, Issue 4. Oxford: Update Software, 2002.
6. Langhorne P, Dennis MS. Stroke units: the next ten years. Lancet 2004;363:834-5.
7. Williams C, Coyle J, Healy D. The meaning of patient satisfaction: an explanation of high reported levels. Soc Sci Med 1998;47:1351- 9.
8. Fifzpatrick R, Hopkins A. Problems in the conceptual framework of patient satisfaction research: an empirical exploration. Social Health Illness 1983;5:297-311.
9. Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggert MA. Measures of need and outcome for primary health care. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications, 1992.
10. Cleary P, Edgman-Levitan S, McMullen W, et al. The relationship between reported problems and summary evaluations of hospital care. Qual Rev Bull 1992;Feb:53-9.
11. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation using data from in-patient surveys in five countries. Int J Qual Health Care 2002;14:353-8.
12. Healthcare Commission. Stroke: survey of patients. London: Healthcare Commission, 2005, www.healthcarecommission.org.uk/_db/_documents/ 04018503.pdf (accessed July 2005).
13. Pound P, Gompertz P, Ebrahim S. Patients' satisfaction with stroke services. Clin Rehabil 1994;8:7-17.
14. Thomas C, Parry A. Research on users' views about stroke services: towards an empowerment research paradigm or more of the same? Physiotherapy 1996;82:6-12.
15. Kelson M, Ford C, Rigg M. Stroke rehabilitation: Patient and carer views. London: College of Health, Royal College of Physicians, 1998.
16. Macduff C. Stroke patients' perceptions of hospital nursing care. J Clin Nurs 1998;7:442-50.
17. Pound P, Tilling K, Rudd AG, et al. Does patient satisfaction reflect differences in care received after stroke. Stroke 1999;30:49-55.
18. McKevitf C, Wolfe C. Community support after stroke: patient and carer views. Br J Ther Rehabil 2000;7:6-10.
19. Reker D, Duncan PW, Horner RD, et al. Postocute stroke guideline compliance is associated with greater patient satisfaction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:750-56.
20. Tyson S, Turner G. The process of stroke rehabilitation: what happens and why. Clin Rehabil 1999;13:322-32.
21. Durieux P, Bissery A, Dubois S, et al. Comparison of health care professionals' self-assessments of standards of care and patients' opinions on the care they received in hospital: observational study. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:198-202.
22. Rao M, Clarke A, Sanderson C, et al. Patients' own assessments of quality of primary care compared with objective records based measures of technical quality of care: cross sectional study. BMJ 2006;333:19-23.
23. Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, et al. Patients' global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Ann fnfern Med 2006;144:665-72.
24. Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality care. Inquiry 1988;25:25-36.
25. Wiles R, Pain H, Buckland S, et al. Providing appropriate information to patients and carers following a stroke. J Adv Nurs 1998;28:794-801.
26. Rodgers H, Atkinson C, Bond S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive stroke education program for patients and caregivers. Stroke 1999;30:2585-91.
27. Rodgers H, Bond S, Curless R. Inadequacies in the provision of information to stroke patients and their families. Age Ageing 2001;30:129-33.
28. Anderson S, Marlett NJ. Communication in stroke: the overlooked rehabilitation tool. Age Ageing 2004;33:440-3.
29. Wiles R, Ashburn A, Payne S, et al. Patients' expectations of recovery following stroke: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil 2002;24:841-50.