Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-4v6tc Total loading time: 1.161 Render date: 2023-02-01T08:53:26.731Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Patient feedback on services: a questionnaire survey approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Palanivelu S. Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Hull, Hertford Building, Cottingham Road, Hull HU6 7RX, email: drpskumar@doctors.org.uk
Andrew McBride
Affiliation:
Specialist Community Addictions Service, The Rectory Centre, Rectory Road, Oxford OX4 1BU
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aims and Method

The aims of the project were to develop a simple, low-cost patient satisfaction questionnaire with face validity and to obtain patient feedback on a range of service areas in a community addiction team. A questionnaire was designed and revised after feedback from multidisciplinary team members and a pilot sample. The questionnaire was distributed until 100 correctly completed forms were received.

Results

The survey took approximately 30 h of authors' time from commencement to completion and costs were minimal. The majority of the 12 areas evaluated were rated by patients as good or very good. Overall quality of care was rated as good or very good by 88% of participants. There was no enthusiasm in this sample for more active participation in service development.

Clinical Implications

All National Health Service staff and services are now enjoined to engage with service users and carers for the purposes of evaluation and development. Simple, affordable methods for obtaining such information about community services can contribute to this process.

Type
Original papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007

Providing high-quality services for the people that need them is the purpose of every public service organisation. According to the principles of clinical governance ‘NHS organisations are accountable for continuously improving the quality of their services and safeguarding high standards of care, by creating an environment in which excellence in clinical care will flourish’ (http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/HealthAndSocialCareTopics/ClinicalGovernance/fs/en). The General Medical Council's revalidation process emphasises providing a good standard of practice and care to the patients (http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/licensing). Individually, appraisal, revalidation and clinical excellence awards increasingly demand ‘evidence’ that doctors provide good clinical care. Corporately, organisations increasingly need to demonstrate to commissioners that they are responding to the needs of patients and carers. Patient involvement in service provision is beneficial for the service user as well as the service provider (Department of Health, 2004).

Conducting a patient survey is a simple method for obtaining information from service users about their perception of the positive and negative aspects of a service and might be one of the only means for clients to express their needs and views (World Health Organization, 2000).

Method

An appropriate questionnaire framework was identified (PSQ-18; http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/psq/index.html; see also Reference Marshall and HaysMarshall & Hays, 1994) and a questionnaire was then designed to cover the most important elements of the service under consideration, recognising the needs to be as succinct and have as much face validity as possible. The questionnaire was revised following feedback from the multidisciplinary team. A pilot survey of 10 patients at one service site showed that participants found the questionnaire understandable, simple and quick (less than 5 min) to complete, requiring no further changes. The final version was limited to 12 questions about different service areas with space for additional comments. (A modifiable electronic version of the questionnaire is available from P.S.K.)

A separate sheet was distributed asking participants to give their address and telephone number if they were willing to be contacted regarding their answers, or improvements to the service, or if they wished to be sent a copy of the results. Two envelopes were provided for the separate return of sheets to ensure anonymity. Participants were asked to return the completed sheets to the reception staff/clinician, or place them in boxes in waiting areas.

The survey was conducted with patients of the Specialist Community Addiction Services, the major health and social care service for people with drug and alcohol problems in Oxfordshire. Questionnaires were distributed to all central and satellite service sites and offered to patients by reception staff and clinicians, with a covering letter. Questionnaires were also sent with stamped addressed envelopes to clients at rehabilitation centres. The survey began in May 2004.

Results

The target sample size was reached by early June 2004; 136 questionnaires were sent out with the intention of collecting 100 correctly completed replies; 6 of the first 100 returned were incomplete and therefore replaced with the next 6 received.

The majority of respondents were aged 20-40 years; 90 respondents were White; 63 respondents were male. The majority of respondents were referred because of drug problems and had been seen on a number of occasions before completing the survey. Responses were obtained from each of the sites where questionnaires were distributed.

Details of responses to the 12 questions are given in Table 1. The majority of participants rated each item good or very good; 5 or more respondents (5%) rated 4 items as poor or very poor. These were the ‘waiting area’ and the ‘time spent waiting’, the ‘consulting rooms’ and the ‘information’ provided. There were 88 participants (88%) who rated the overall quality of care provided as very good or good.

Table 1. Responses to the questionnaire

Very good n Good n Average n Poor n Very Poor n Not applicable n
Helpfulness of administration staff 56 34 8 1 1 0
Timing of appointments 42 41 13 4 0 0
Ease of access to services 35 46 15 4 0 0
Waiting room: facilities and comfort 25 43 24 7 1 0
Consulting rooms: facilities and comfort 26 40 29 5 0 0
Waiting time at clinic 23 42 23 9 1 2
Information given 44 34 12 7 2 1
Respect for your opinions 55 32 7 3 1 2
Quality of advice 51 36 9 2 1 1
Medication 47 32 6 3 0 2
Counselling 45 36 10 1 1 7
Overall quality of care 59 29 10 0 0 2

Space for comments was used by only a minority of respondents and very much reflected the overall tenor of the feedback scores. Entries range in tone, for example:

‘The counselling rooms are horrible, plain and boring. Don't feel comfortable, so you don't feel in a place to talk openly and honestly.’

‘Great service! Thank you for your help, keep up your good work.’

There were 33 respondents who asked to be sent a copy of the results; 11 volunteered to be contacted by telephone about future service development. Those that could be contacted made suggestions about improvements to the waiting areas and interview rooms, and the information leaflets that they thought should be made available. The clients were offered opportunities to be involved in further discussions and at the stage of implementation of changes, but unfortunately none was interested in any further involvement.

Discussion

The Department of Health in England is moving towards the patient playing a major role in the development and improvement of services. It is also the duty of everybody involved in health provision to keep the individuals to whom the services are provided involved and consulted (Health and Social Care Act 2001). The National Audit Commission has also recommended that existing clients’ satisfaction with the treatment they receive should be taken into account when commissioning drug treatment services for adults (Audit Commission, 2002).

The survey took less than 3 weeks to conduct. The questionnaires were simple, taking approximately 5 min to complete and most participants did not have a problem completing them. The response was reasonably good at 73%, as it is known to be difficult to engage those who misuse substances (Reference Kay and PetersKay & Peters, 1992; Reference Fountain, Griffiths and StrangFountain et al, 2000). The costs of the survey were minimal amounting to perhaps 30 h of planning and coordinating, but following the outline model presented here would significantly reduce the time for replication. The only other costs were for stationery, photocopying, postage and follow-up telephone calls.

The main weakness of the design is the lack of evidence for reliability for the questions asked. Inevitably, those people who, for whatever reason, do not attend the service as currently configured could not contribute to the feedback process. The strengths of the survey method are the simplicity and face validity of the design and the rapid recruitment of 100 broadly representative service users (Reference Gossop, Marsden and StewartGossop et al, 1998). Their anonymous ratings may give a clearer understanding of their perspective than solicited feedback from a small number of individuals for 360-degree appraisal or a suggestions box. The results provided valuable positive feedback to staff, and were useful for discussion of the overall direction of the service, indicating areas that need improvement.

Most patients wanted to express their views about service improvement, but the failure to identify any patient who was willing to take any more active part in service planning is disappointing. This seems to be a recognised limitation of such an exercise (Reference CoulterCoulter, 2002).

In response to the findings the Specialist Community Addiction Services are developing a range of information leaflets. This is one of the key policies recommended by the National Treatment Agency (2002). The desirability of changes to the décor of waiting areas and consulting rooms has been fed through to relevant management groups. Reducing waiting times and making the waiting and consulting rooms welcoming play a big part in engaging the patient in treatment.

Declaration of interest

None.

References

Audit Commission (2002) Changing Habits: The Commissioning and Management of Community Drug Treatment Services for Adults. Audit Commission.Google Scholar
Coulter, A. (2002) Involving patients: representation or representativeness? Health Expectations, 5, 1.Google ScholarPubMed
Department of Health (2004) Patient and Public Involvement in Health: The Evidence for Policy Implementation. Department of Health.Google Scholar
Fountain, J., Griffiths, P., Strang, J., et al (2000) Measuring met and unmet need of drug misusers: integration of quantitative and qualitative data. European Addiction Research, 6, 97103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gossop, M., Marsden, J. & Stewart, D. (1998) NTORS at One Year: The National Treatment Outcome Research Study – Changes in Substance Use, Health and Criminal Behaviours One Year after Intake. Department of Health.Google Scholar
Kay, R.W. & Peters, A. D. (1992) A pilot survey of client opinion of the Lothian Community Drug Problem Service: likes, dislikes, efficacy and improvements. Health Bulletin, 50, 3238.Google ScholarPubMed
Marshall, G. N. & Hays, R. D. (1994) Health Survey – Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire – PSQ18. The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire Short-Form (PSQ-18). RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
National Treatment Agency (2002) Models of Care for the Treatment of Adult Drug Misusers. NTA.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (2000) Client Satisfaction Evaluation. Workbook 6. WHO.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Responses to the questionnaire

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.
You have Access Open access
1
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Patient feedback on services: a questionnaire survey approach
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Patient feedback on services: a questionnaire survey approach
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Patient feedback on services: a questionnaire survey approach
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *