General practitioners' experience and benefits from patient evaluations

BMC Family Practice

Volumn 12, Issue , 2011, Pages

  Heje, Hanne N ^a   Vedsted, Peter ^a   Olesen, Frede ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR; ARTICLE; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DENMARK; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; JOB SATISFACTION; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DENMARK; FEEDBACK, PSYCHOLOGICAL; GENERAL PRACTITIONERS; HUMANS; JOB SATISFACTION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 80055011885     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712296     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-12-116     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, Olesen F, Grol R, Soc Sci Med 1998 47 1573 1588 10.1016/S0277-9536(98) 00222-6 9823053 (Pubitemid 28482440)
2. Comparison of patients' preferences and evaluations regarding aspects of general practice care. Jung H, Wensing M, de Wilt A, Olesen F, Grol R, Fam Pract 2000 17 236 242 10.1093/fampra/17.3.236 10846142 (Pubitemid 30386716)
3. Diffusion of innovations. Rogers EM, New York: The Free Press 1995
4. Diffusion, Dissemination and Implementation: Who Should Do What? Lomas J, Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993 703 226 235 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb26351.x 8192299
5. Evaluating the use of a modified CAHPS survey to support improvements in the patient-centred care: lessons from a quality improvement collaborative. Davies E, Shaller D, Edgman-Levitan S, Safran DG, Oftedahl G, Sakowski J, Cleary PD, Health Expectations 2008 11 160 176 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00483.x 18494960 (Pubitemid 351724999)
6. Do patient surveys work? The influence of a nationale survey programme on local quality-improvement initiatives. Reeves R, Seccombe I, Qual Saf Health Care 2008 17 437 441 10.1136/qshc.2007.022749 19064659
7. Using patient feedback for quality improvement. Tasa K, Baker GR, Murray M, Qual Manag Health Care 1996 4 55 67 10159142
8. Hearing the patient's voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement. Davies E, Cleary PD, Qual Saf Health Care 2005 14 428 432 10.1136/qshc.2004.012955 16326789 (Pubitemid 41820068)
9. Assessing the practising physician using patient surveys: a systematic review of instruments and feedback methods. Evans RG, Edwards A, Evans S, Elwyn B, Elwyn G, Family Practice 2007 24 117 127 10.1093/fampra/cml072 17264071 (Pubitemid 47079260)
10. Quality assessment by using patients' evaluation of care. Wensing M, Grol R, van Weel C, Felling A, Eur J Gen Pract 1998 4 150 153
11. The Improving Practice Questionnaire (IPQ): a practical tool for general practice seeking patient views. Greco M, Powell R, Sweeney K, Educ Prim Care 2003 14 440 448 (Pubitemid 37466326)
12. Validation studies of the Doctors' Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire. Greco M, Cavanagh M, Brownles A, McGovern J, Educ Gen Pract 1999 10 256 264 (Pubitemid 29403333)
13. Impact of patient feedback on the interpersonal skills of general practice registrars: results of a longitudinal study. Greco M, Brownlea A, McGovern J, Med Educ 2001 35 8 748 756 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00976.x 11489102 (Pubitemid 32679325)
14. Feedback based on patient evaluations: a tool for quality improvement? Wensing M, Vingerhoets E, Grol R, Patient Educ Couns 2003 51 149 153 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00199-4 14572944 (Pubitemid 37311332)
15. Feedback of patients' evaluations of general practice care: a randomised trial. Vingerhoets E, Wensing M, Grol R, Qual Health Care 2001 10 4 224 228 10.1136/qhc.0100224 11743151
16. Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison. Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Jung HP, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw H, et al. Br J Gen Pract 2000 50 882 887 11141874
17. Patients evaluate general/family practice. The EUROPEP instrument. Grol R, Wensing M, Nijmegen 2000
18. A cluster-randomized trial of significance of a reminder procedure in a patient evaluation survey in general practice. Heje HN, Vedsted P, Olesen F, Int J Qual Health Care 2006 18 232 7 10.1093/intqhc/mzl006 16766604 (Pubitemid 43997309)
19. [Problem identification og quality assessment in health care. Theori, method, results] (thesis, in Danish). Mainz J, Copenhagen: Munksgaard 1995
20. Continuous improvement as an ideal in health care. Berwick DM, N Engl J Med 1989 320 53 56 10.1056/NEJM198901053200110 2909878 (Pubitemid 19033064)
21. Clinician mindfulness and patient safety. Sibinga EMS, Wu AW, JAMA 2010 304 2532 3 10.1001/jama.2010.1817 21139116
22. Satisfaction, compliance and communication. Ley P, Brit J Clin Psychol 1982 21 241 254 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb00562.x (Pubitemid 13215777)
23. Impact of systematic patient feedback on general practices, staff, patients and primary care trusts. Carter M, Greco M, Sweeney K, Neill E, Mitchell A, Stead J, Powell R, Dixon M, Educ Prim Care 2004 15 30 38 (Pubitemid 38252154)
24. Data quality and confimatory factor analyses of the danish EUROPEP questionnaire on patient evaluation of general practice. Vedsted P, Sokolowski I, Heje HN, Scand J Prim Health Care 2008 26 174 180 10.1080/02813430802294803 18759161
25. Association between patients' recommendations of their GP and their evaluation of the GP. Vedsted P, Heje HN, Scand J Prim Health Care 2008 26 228 234 10.1080/02813430802294886 18792855
26. Patient evaluation in general practice. Methodological aspects, influence of patient and GP characteristics and the GPs' experience with the evaluations. Heje HN, Thesis Aarhus 2006
27. Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method. Bland JM, Altman DG, BMJ 1995 310 170 10.1136/bmj.310.6973.170 7833759
28. Patient satisfaction - does it matter? Vuori H, Qual Assur Health Care 1991 3 3 183 189 1782386