Cargando…

Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England

The credibility of a regulator could be threatened if stakeholders perceive that assessments of performance made by its inspectors are unreliable. Yet there is little published research on the reliability of inspectors’ assessments of health care organizations’ services. OBJECTIVES: We investigated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boyd, Alan, Addicott, Rachael, Robertson, Ruth, Ross, Shilpa, Walshe, Kieran
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5207299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27707897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1355819616669736
_version_ 1782490343441170432
author Boyd, Alan
Addicott, Rachael
Robertson, Ruth
Ross, Shilpa
Walshe, Kieran
author_facet Boyd, Alan
Addicott, Rachael
Robertson, Ruth
Ross, Shilpa
Walshe, Kieran
author_sort Boyd, Alan
collection PubMed
description The credibility of a regulator could be threatened if stakeholders perceive that assessments of performance made by its inspectors are unreliable. Yet there is little published research on the reliability of inspectors’ assessments of health care organizations’ services. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the inter-rater reliability of assessments made by inspectors inspecting acute hospitals in England during the piloting of a new regulatory model implemented by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) during 2013 and 2014. Multi-professional teams of inspectors rated service provision on a four-point scale for each of five domains: safety; effectiveness; caring; responsiveness; and leadership. METHODS: In an online survey, we asked individual inspectors to assign a domain and a rating to each of 10 vignettes of service information extracted from CQC inspection reports. We used these data to simulate the ratings that might be produced by teams of inspectors. We also observed inspection teams in action, and interviewed inspectors and staff from hospitals that had been inspected. RESULTS: Levels of agreement varied substantially from vignette to vignette. Characteristics such as professional background explained only a very small part of the variation. Overall, agreement was higher on ratings than on domains, and for groups of inspectors compared with individual inspectors. A number of potential causes of disagreement were identified, such as differences regarding the weight that should be given to contextual factors and general uncertainty about interpreting the rating and domain categories. CONCLUSION: Groups of inspectors produced more reliable assessments than individual inspectors, and there is evidence to support the utility of appropriate discussions between inspectors in improving reliability. The reliability of domain allocations was lower than for ratings. It is important to define categories and rating levels clearly, and to train inspectors in their use. Further research is needed to replicate these results now that the model has been fully implemented, and to understand better the impact that inspector uncertainty and disagreement may have on published CQC ratings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5207299
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52072992017-01-23 Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England Boyd, Alan Addicott, Rachael Robertson, Ruth Ross, Shilpa Walshe, Kieran J Health Serv Res Policy Original Research The credibility of a regulator could be threatened if stakeholders perceive that assessments of performance made by its inspectors are unreliable. Yet there is little published research on the reliability of inspectors’ assessments of health care organizations’ services. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the inter-rater reliability of assessments made by inspectors inspecting acute hospitals in England during the piloting of a new regulatory model implemented by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) during 2013 and 2014. Multi-professional teams of inspectors rated service provision on a four-point scale for each of five domains: safety; effectiveness; caring; responsiveness; and leadership. METHODS: In an online survey, we asked individual inspectors to assign a domain and a rating to each of 10 vignettes of service information extracted from CQC inspection reports. We used these data to simulate the ratings that might be produced by teams of inspectors. We also observed inspection teams in action, and interviewed inspectors and staff from hospitals that had been inspected. RESULTS: Levels of agreement varied substantially from vignette to vignette. Characteristics such as professional background explained only a very small part of the variation. Overall, agreement was higher on ratings than on domains, and for groups of inspectors compared with individual inspectors. A number of potential causes of disagreement were identified, such as differences regarding the weight that should be given to contextual factors and general uncertainty about interpreting the rating and domain categories. CONCLUSION: Groups of inspectors produced more reliable assessments than individual inspectors, and there is evidence to support the utility of appropriate discussions between inspectors in improving reliability. The reliability of domain allocations was lower than for ratings. It is important to define categories and rating levels clearly, and to train inspectors in their use. Further research is needed to replicate these results now that the model has been fully implemented, and to understand better the impact that inspector uncertainty and disagreement may have on published CQC ratings. SAGE Publications 2016-10-05 2017-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5207299/ /pubmed/27707897 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1355819616669736 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Boyd, Alan
Addicott, Rachael
Robertson, Ruth
Ross, Shilpa
Walshe, Kieran
Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England
title Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England
title_full Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England
title_fullStr Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England
title_full_unstemmed Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England
title_short Are inspectors’ assessments reliable? Ratings of NHS acute hospital trust services in England
title_sort are inspectors’ assessments reliable? ratings of nhs acute hospital trust services in england
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5207299/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27707897
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1355819616669736
work_keys_str_mv AT boydalan areinspectorsassessmentsreliableratingsofnhsacutehospitaltrustservicesinengland
AT addicottrachael areinspectorsassessmentsreliableratingsofnhsacutehospitaltrustservicesinengland
AT robertsonruth areinspectorsassessmentsreliableratingsofnhsacutehospitaltrustservicesinengland
AT rossshilpa areinspectorsassessmentsreliableratingsofnhsacutehospitaltrustservicesinengland
AT walshekieran areinspectorsassessmentsreliableratingsofnhsacutehospitaltrustservicesinengland