References

Bullivant JRN Benchmarking in the UK National Health Service. Int J Hlth Care Qual Assur. 1996; 9:(2)9-14
Carey RG, Seibert JH. A Patient Survey System to Measure Quality Improvement: Questionnaire Validity and Reliability. Med Care. 1993; 31:(9)834-845
Busby M, Burke FJT, Matthews R, Cyrta J, Mullins A. The development of a concise questionnaire designed to measure perceived outcomes on issues of greatest importance to patients. Br Dent J. 2012; 212:(8)382-383
Busby M, Burke FJT, Matthews R, Cyrta J, Mullins A. Measuring oral health self perceptions as part of a concise patient survey. Br Dent J. 2012; 213:(12)611-615
Newsome P.: British Dental Association; 2001

Can a concise, benchmarked patient survey help to stimulate improvements in perceived quality of care?

From Volume 41, Issue 9, November 2014 | Pages 816-822

Authors

Mike Busby

MPhil, BDS, LDS RCS, DGDP, FDS RCS(Edin)

Dental Advisor Denplan, Honorary Lecturer in Primary Dental Care, University of Birmingham, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK

Articles by Mike Busby

FJ Trevor Burke

DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS, FDS (RCS Edin), FDS RCS (Eng), FCG Dent, FADM,

Articles by FJ Trevor Burke

Roger Matthews

MA, BDS, FDS RCS(Edin), FFGDP(UK)

Chief Dental Officer, Denplan, Denplan Court, Victoria Road, Winchester SO23 7RG, UK

Articles by Roger Matthews

Jakub Cyrta

Data and Management Information Co-ordinator, Denplan, Denplan Court, Victoria Road, Winchester SO23 7RG, UK

Articles by Jakub Cyrta

Anne Mullins

BA

Research Manager, Denplan, Denplan Court, Victoria Road, Winchester SO23 7RG, UK

Articles by Anne Mullins

Abstract

Second phase patient survey audit results were reviewed for 41 practices. Five of the six practices with the lowest first phase results achieved significantly improved results in the second phase. The average increase in a patient perception index between phase 1 and phase 2 for these 6 practices was 6 points. The average increase was only 1 point for the other 39 practices. The five practices recording significantly improved patient perceptions all reported that significant practice development had been taking place between the phase 1 and phase 2 audits. For 3 of these 5 practices their first phase audit result had been a significant inspiration for the practice development. It seems that this patient survey instrument may be inspiring significant development when practices score notably below the benchmark.

Clinical Relevance: Patient surveys may be of value.

Article

Benchmarking against a standard is a central tenet of clinical audit1 and patient surveys have become established as a method of measuring patient perceived quality of care.2 Whereas a clinical procedure might have a clear professional standard described in the literature against which benchmarking can take place, benchmarking of patient survey data is not so straightforward.

Busby et al3,4 described a concise patient survey in which results for each practice participating in a voluntary accreditation programme (Denplan Excel) were benchmarked against the average results for other participating practices. This instrument was called the Denplan Excel Patient Survey (DEPS). In DEPS the benchmark is called the National Reference Sample (NRS). DEPS was designed to cover those aspects of care found, in a literature review, to be most important to patients, and therefore central to perceived quality. The ten core questions are reproduced with patient response options in Figure 1. The authors concluded that, because DEPS, in its reporting, was able to indicate when perceived performance was falling significantly below the NRS, it could inform practice development. It would then be hoped that this practice development could lead to improved quality and improved patient perceptions.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available