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, R2 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.

National Re-Audit of Urology Outpatient Practice in UK

“…One highlighted administrative problems [17] while in another they had a non-attendance rate of 17% which they could reduce by 51% if a text message reminder was sent [18]. Recently, a paper showed that overall, patients' rated their urology outpatient consultation higher than ''same as most practitioners'' [19]. Although this is reassuring, further studies, addressing different aspects of outpatient provision, are required if our service is to continue to improve.…”

Multisource Feedback to Assess Surgical Practice: A Systematic Review

“…19 For example, Sinclair et al achieved Ep 2 ¼ 0.70 with a 13-item instrument and 23 raters. 12 Generalizability was reported in only these 4 studies and it ranged from Ep 2 ¼ 0.70 to 0.80. 1,[11][12][13] The other 4 studies in Table 2 did not report any generalizability analyses.…”

“…14 Chipp et al, 15 employing plastic surgeons, found that consultants rated trainees more stringently than trainees, nurses, and patients. Sinclair et al, 12 employing urologists in the UK, addressed construct validity by testing the instrument in different settings and on different occasions.…”

Does questionnaire-based patient feedback reflect the important qualities of clinical consultations? Context, benefits and risks

“…[52,53,54,55], and clinical condition[56 While studies have reported the reliability and construct validity of feedback tools [ ]. Patient feedback systems must be robust to different consultations associated with these variables 57,58,59,60,61,62. …”