Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSaunders, CL
dc.contributor.authorElliott, MN
dc.contributor.authorLyratzopoulos, G
dc.contributor.authorAbel, GA
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-08T10:13:36Z
dc.date.issued2016-01-01
dc.description.abstractBackground: Patient surveys typically have variable response rates between organizations, leading to concerns that such differences may affect the validity of performance comparisons. Objective: To explore the size and likely sources of associations between hospital-level survey response rates and patient experience. Research Design, Subjects, and Measures: Cross-sectional mail survey including 60 patient experience items sent to 101,771 cancer survivors recently treated by 158 English NHS hospitals. Age, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, clinical diagnosis, hospital type, and region were available for respondents and nonrespondents. Results: The overall response rate was 67% (range, 39% to 77% between hospitals). Hospitals with higher response rates had higher scores for all items (Spearman correlation range, 0.03-0.44), particularly questions regarding hospital-level administrative processes, for example, procedure cancellations or medical note availability. From multivariable analysis, associations between individual patient experience and hospital-level response rates were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for 53/59 analyzed questions, decreasing to 37/59 after adjusting for case-mix, and 25/59 after further adjusting for hospital-level characteristics. Predicting responses of nonrespondents, and re-estimating hypothetical hospital scores assuming a 100% response rate, we found that currently low performing hospitals would have attained even lower scores. Overall nationwide attainment would have decreased slightly to that currently observed. Conclusions: Higher response rate hospitals have more positive experience scores, and this is only partly explained by patient casemix. High response rates may be a marker of efficient hospital administration, and higher quality that should not, therefore, be adjusted away in public reporting. Although nonresponse may result in slightly overestimating overall national levels of performance, it does not appear to meaningfully bias comparisons of case-mixadjusted hospital results.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipCancer Research UKen_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 54 (1), pp. 45 - 54en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/MLR.0000000000000457
dc.identifier.grantnumberA18180en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/35827
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherLippincott, Williams & Wilkinsen_GB
dc.rightsCopyright r 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectsurveyen_GB
dc.subjectnonresponseen_GB
dc.subjecthealthcare qualityen_GB
dc.subjectpatient experienceen_GB
dc.subjectcanceren_GB
dc.titleDo Differential Response Rates to Patient Surveys between Organizations Lead to Unfair Performance Comparisons? Evidence from the English Cancer Patient Experience Surveyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-02-08T10:13:36Z
dc.identifier.issn0025-7079
dc.descriptionThis is the final published version. Available from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins via the DOI in this record.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalMedical Careen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
pubs.euro-pubmed-idMED:26595223
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-01-01
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-01-01
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-02-08T10:11:35Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2019-02-08T10:13:38Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright r 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. This is
an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Copyright r 2015 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.