Re-Certification for Urologists: Is the SHEFFPAT Questionnaire Valid for Assessing Clinicians' ‘Relationships with Patients’?

Abstract

Objective:

In urology there is currently no validated and objective way to measure the ‘Relationship with Patients’ aspect of re-validation. The Sheffield Patient Assessment Tool (SHEFFPAT) questionnaire has been validated in a paediatric setting and is recommended by the Picker institute for patient feedback. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility, reliability and validity of the SHEFFPAT questionnaire in urology to determine if it is an appropriate tool to be used for patient feedback.

Subjects and methods:

Ten consultants in the North West Region gave permission for the SHEFFPAT questionnaire to be distributed to their patients. A minimum of 25 completed questionnaires was required per consultant. A detailed analysis looking at reliability, bias, feasibility and validity was then carried out.

Results:

In total there were 464 completed questionnaires. The cohort mean score was 4.66 (S.D. 0.19) ranging from 2.0 to 5.0. Twenty-three patients are needed to provide feedback in order to achieve a reliability of 0.7 (95% CI 0.21). The gender and ethnicity of the patient nor their familiarity with the urologist helped to explain the variability in scores (R = 0.27, R ² 0.072, standard error of estimate 0.525).

Conclusion:

The SHEFFPAT questionnaire appears to provide reliable, valid and unbiased feedback from the patients' perspective fulfilling the White Paper and Health Minister's request for patient involvement in the re-validation process.

Keywords

Re-validation Re-licensing Re-certification Relationship with patients SHEFFPAT questionnaire

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Donaldson

. Medical revalidation—principles and next steps. London: Department of Health; 2008.

Department of Health . Trust, Assurance and Safety—the regulation of health professionals in the 21st century. London: Department of Health; 2007.

General Medical Council . Good Medical Practice. 4th ed. London: GMC; 2006 http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/.

Department of Health . High quality care for all: NHS next stage reviewfinal report by Lord Darzi. London: Department of Health; 2008.

Chisholm

Askham

. What do you think of your doctor? A review of questionnaires for gathering patients' feedback on their doctor. Oxford: Picker Institute; 2006.

Crossley

Eiser

Davies

. Children and their parents assessing the doctor-patient interaction: a rating system for doctors' communication skills. Med Educ 2005;39(August (8):820–8.

Crossley

Davies

. Doctors' consultations with children and their parents: a model of competencies, outcomes and confounding influences. Med Educ 2005;39(8):807–19.

Cronbach

. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Measur 2004;64(3): 391–418.

Crossley

Russell

Jolly

Ricketts

Roberts

Schuwirth

‘I‘m pickin’ up good regressions’: the governance of generalisability analyses. Med Educ 2007;41:926–34.

10.

Norcini

Standards and reliability in evaluation: when rules of thumb don't apply. Acad Med 1999;74(10):1088–90.

11.

Kane

Bernardin

Villanova

Peyrefitte

. Stability of rater leniency: three studies. Acad Manage J 1995;38:1036–51.

12.

Frank

Jabbour

Tugwell

. Skills for the new millennium: report of the societal needs working group CanMEDS 2000 Project. Ann R Coll Phys Surg Can 1996;29:206–16.

13.

Sargeant

Mann

Ferrier

. Exploring family physicians' reactions to multisource feedback: perceptions of credibility and usefulness. Med Educ 2005;39(5):497–504.