Dataset Information

The Net Promoter Score--an asset to patient experience surveys?

ABSTRACT: In the search for more straightforward ways of summarizing patient experiences and satisfaction, there is growing interest in the Net Promoter Score (NPS): How likely is it that you would recommend our company to a friend or colleague?To assess what the NPS adds to patient experience surveys. The NPS was tested against three other constructs already used in current surveys to summarize patient experiences and satisfaction: global ratings, recommendation questions and overall scores calculated from patient experiences. To establish whether the NPS is a valid measure for summarizing patient experiences, its association with these experiences should be assessed.Associations between the NPS and the three other constructs were assessed and their distributions were compared. Also, the association between the NPS and patient experiences was assessed. Data were used from patient surveys of inpatient hospital care (N = 6018) and outpatient hospital care (N = 10 902) in six Dutch hospitals.Analyses showed that the NPS was moderately to strongly correlated with the other three constructs. However, their distributions proved distinctly different. Furthermore, the patient experiences from the surveys showed weaker associations with the NPS than with the global rating and the overall score.Because of the limited extent to which the NPS reflects the survey results, it seems less valid as a summary of patient experiences than a global rating, the existing recommendation question or an overall score calculated from patient experiences. In short, it is still unclear what the NPS specifically adds to patient experience surveys.

SUBMITTER: Krol MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5810704 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Net Promoter Score--an asset to patient experience surveys?

Krol Maarten W MW de Boer Dolf D Delnoij Diana M DM Rademakers Jany J D J M JJ

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20141027 6

<h4>Background</h4>In the search for more straightforward ways of summarizing patient experiences and satisfaction, there is growing interest in the Net Promoter Score (NPS): How likely is it that you would recommend our company to a friend or colleague?<h4>Objective</h4>To assess what the NPS adds to patient experience surveys. The NPS was tested against three other constructs already used in current surveys to summarize patient experiences and satisfaction: global ratings, recommendation quest ...[more]

PMID: 25345554

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to develop and administer surveys that assess patient and family caregiver experiences with care transitions and examine the psychometric properties of the surveys. The surveys were designed to ask about 1) the transitional care services that matter most to patients and their caregivers and 2) care outcomes, including the overall quality of transitional care they received, patient self-reported health, and caregiver effort/stress.MethodsSurvey items were developed based on a review of the literature, existing surveys, focus groups, site visits, stakeholder and expert input, and patient and caregiver cognitive interviews. We administered mail surveys with telephone follow up to patients recently discharged from 43 U.S. hospitals. Patients identified the caregivers who helped them during their hospital stay (Time 1 caregiver) and when they were home (Time 2 caregiver). Time 1 and Time 2 caregivers were surveyed by telephone only. The psychometric properties of the survey items and outcome composite measures were examined for each of the three surveys. Items that performed poorly across multiple analyses, including those with low variability and/or a high missing data, were dropped except when they were conceptually important.ResultsThe analysis datasets included responses from 9282 patients, 1245 Time 1 caregivers and 1749 Time 2 caregivers. The construct validity of the three proposed outcome composite measures-Overall Quality of Transitional Care (patient and caregiver surveys), Patient Overall Health (patient survey) and Caregiver Effort/Stress (caregiver surveys) -was supported by acceptable exploratory factor analysis results and acceptable internal consistency reliability. Site-level reliability was acceptable for the two patient outcome composite measures, but was low for Caregiver Effort/Stress (< 0.70). In all surveys, the Overall Quality of Transitional Care outcome composite measure was significantly correlated with other outcome composite measures and most of the single-item measures.ConclusionsOverall, the final patient and caregiver surveys are psychometrically sound and can be used by health systems, hospitals, and researchers to assess the quality of care transitions and related outcomes. Results from these surveys can be used to improve care transitions, focusing on what matters most to patients and their family caregivers.

Project description:BACKGROUND: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 case-mix. 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-mix-adjusted hospital results.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To understand and report on the nature of patient group interactions with the pharmaceutical industry from the perspective of patient group representatives by exploring the range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and how, why, and when interactions occur. DESIGN:Empirical qualitative interview study informed by ethics theory. SETTING:Australian patient groups. PARTICIPANTS:27 participants from 23 Australian patient groups that represented diverse levels of financial engagement with the pharmaceutical industry. Groups were focused on general health consumer issues or disease specific topics, and had regional or national jurisdictions. ANALYSIS:Analytic techniques were informed by grounded theory. Interview transcripts were coded into data driven categories. Findings were organised into new conceptual categories to describe and explain the data, and were supported by quotes. RESULTS:A range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical industry sponsorship were identified that are presented as four different types of relationship between patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry. The dominant relationship type was of a successful business partnership, and participants described close working relationships with industry personnel. These participants acknowledged a potential for adverse industry influence, but expressed confidence in existing strategies for avoiding industry influence. Other participants described unsatisfactory or undeveloped relationships, and some participants (all from general health consumer groups) presented their groups' missions as incompatible with the pharmaceutical industry because of fundamentally opposing interests. Participants reported that interactions between their patient group and pharmaceutical companies were more common when companies had new drugs of potential interest to group members. Patient groups that accepted industry funding engaged in exchanges of "assets" with companies. Groups received money, information, and advice in exchange for providing companies with marketing, relationship building opportunities with key opinion leaders, coordinated lobbying with companies about drug access and subsidy, assisting companies with clinical trial recruitment, and enhancing company credibility. CONCLUSIONS:An understanding of the range of views patient groups have about pharmaceutical company sponsorship will be useful for groups that seek to identify and manage any ethical concerns about these relationships. Patient groups that receive pharmaceutical industry money should anticipate they might be asked for specific assets in return. Selective industry funding of groups where active product marketing opportunities exist might skew the patient group sector's activity towards pharmaceutical industry interests and allow industry to exert proxy influence over advocacy and subsequent health policy.

Dataset Information

The Net Promoter Score--an asset to patient experience surveys?

Publications

The Net Promoter Score--an asset to patient experience surveys?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets