Extending the assessment of patient-centredness in health care: Development of the updated Valuing Patients as Individuals Scale using exploratory factor analysis

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To update and re-validate the Valuing Patients as Individuals Scale for use as a patient appraisal of received healthcare.

BACKGROUND

Healthcare in the United Kingdom and beyond is required to deliver high quality, person-centred care that is clinically effective and safe. However, patient experience is not uniform, and complaints often focus on the way patients have been treated. Legislation in United Kingdom requires health services to gather and use patients' evaluations of care to improve services.

DESIGN

This study uses scoping literature reviews, cognitive testing of questionnaire items with patient and healthcare staff focus groups, and exploratory factor analysis.

METHODS/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected from 790 participants across 34 wards in two acute hospitals in one National Health Service Health Board in Scotland from September 2011-February 2012. Ethics and Research and Development approval were obtained.

RESULTS

Fifty six unique items identified through literature review were added to 72 original Valuing Patients as Individuals Scale items. Face validity interviews removed ambiguous or low relevance items leaving 88 items for administration to patients. Two hundred and ninety questionnaires were returned, representing 37% response rate, 71 were incomplete. Thus 219 complete data were used for Exploratory Factor Analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation. This revealed a 31 item, three factor solution, Care and Respect; Understanding and Engagement; Patient Concerns, with good reliability, concurrent and discriminant validity in terms of gender. A shortened 10 item measure based on the top 3 or 4 loading items on each scale was comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

The Updated Valuing Patients as Individuals Scale is sufficiently developed to capture patient appraisals of received care.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The short scale version is now being routinized in real-time evaluation of patient experience contributing to this United Kingdom, National Health Service setting meeting its policy and legislative requirements.

Divergence of NHS choice policy in the UK: what difference has patient choice policy in England made?

OBJECTIVES

To examine the types of choices available to patients in the English NHS when being referred for acute hospital care in the light of the divergence of patient choice policy in the four countries of the UK.

METHODS

Case studies of eight local health economies in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales (two in each country); 125 semi-structured interviews with staff in acute services providers, purchasers and general practitioners (GPs).

RESULTS

GPs and providers in England both had a clear understanding of the choice of provider policy and the right of patients to choose a provider. Other referral choices potentially available to patients in all four countries were date and time of appointment, site and specialist. In practice, the availability of these choices differed between and within countries and was shaped by factors beyond choice policy, such as the number of providers in an area. There were similarities between the four countries in the way choices were offered to patients, namely lack of clarity about the options available, limited discussion of choices between referrers and patients, and tension between offering choice and managing waiting lists.

CONCLUSIONS

There are challenges in implementing pro-choice policy in health care systems where it has not traditionally existed. Differences between England and the other countries of the UK were limited in the way choice was offered to patients. A cultural shift is needed to ensure that patients are fully informed by GPs of the choices available to them.