2013BMJ Quality & SafetyRequires access

The accident and emergency department questionnaire: a measure for patients’ experiences in the accident and emergency department—reply

Nanne Bos, Steve Sizmur, Chris Graham, Henk F. van Stel

Open publisher page 28 citations

Abstract

With this letter we respond to the comments of Chance et al on our recent publication ‘Patient Experience in the Accident and Emergency Department’. We applied three different methods of grouping and summarised the items on the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department questionnaire presented to patients. The best score reliability was provided by the Principal Components Analysis. Chance et al acknowledge the importance of patients’ feedback but questioned whether this measure of patients’ experiences is valuable and valid for comparisons of the quality of care services, and whether selection bias affected the results. The purpose of our research was to examine alternative ways of obtaining a reliable composite, but we do not negate the important information from separate questions. Single questionnaire items are less reliable than well-constructed composites,1 but are able …

About this research paper

What this paper is about

With this letter we respond to the comments of Chance et al on our recent publication ‘Patient Experience in the Accident and Emergency Department’. We applied three different methods of grouping and summarised the items on the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department questionnaire presented to patients. The best score reliability was provided by the Principal Components Analysis. Chance et al acknowledge the importance of patients’ feedback but questioned whether this measure of patients’ experiences is valuable and valid for comparisons of the quality of care services, and whether selection bias affected the results. The purpose of our research was to examine alternative ways of obtaining a reliable composite, but we do not negate the important information from separate questions. Single questionnaire items are less reliable than well-constructed composites,1 but are able …

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 28 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

With this letter we respond to the comments of Chance et al on our recent publication ‘Patient Experience in the Accident and Emergency Department’. We applied three different methods of grouping and summarised the items on the Accident and Emergency (A&E) department questionnaire presented to patients. The best score reliability was provided by the Principal Components Analysis. Chance et al acknowledge the importance of patients’ feedback but questioned whether this measure of patients’ experiences is valuable and valid for comparisons of the quality of care services, and whether selection bias affected the results. The purpose of our research was to examine alternative ways of obtaining a reliable composite, but we do not negate the important information from separate questions. Single questionnaire items are less reliable than well-constructed composites,1 but are able …

Key concepts: Emergency department, Accident and emergency, Medicine, Reliability (semiconductor), Medical emergency, Accident (philosophy), Quality (philosophy), Measure (data warehouse)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The accident and emergency department questionnaire: a measure for patients’ experiences in the accident and emergency department—reply — Research Paper | ScholarLens