TABLE 81

Questionnaire item response distributions

Questionnaire itemn (total = 1396)%
How easy was it to contact the out-of-hours GP service by telephone?
 Very easy88463.32
 Fairly easy40428.94
 Not very easy423.01
 Not at all easy151.07
 Don’t know/didn’t make contact by telephone382.72
 Not answered130.93
How do you feel about how quickly you received care from the out-of-hours GP service?
 It was quicker than expected60543.34
 It was about right61343.91
 It took too long15210.89
 Don’t know/doesn’t apply130.93
 Not answered130.93
Did you have confidence and trust in the out-of-hours health-care professional you consulted with?
 Yes, definitely92866.48
 Yes, to some extent34724.86
 No, not at all755.37
 Don’t know/can’t say292.08
 Not answered171.22
Overall, how would you describe your experience of the out-of-hours GP service?
 Very good77255.3
 Good41729.87
 Neither good nor poor916.52
 Poor443.15
 Very poor392.79
 Not answered332.36
How do you rate [how long it took your call to be answered]?
 Very poor302.15
 Poor362.58
 Acceptable34925.00
 Good46032.95
 Excellent43230.95
 Not answered896.38
Please rate the helpfulness of the call operator
 Very poor271.93
 Poor201.43
 Acceptable21515.40
 Good55439.68
 Excellent49635.53
 Not answered846.02
Please rate the extent to which you felt the call operator listened to you
 Very poor181.29
 Poor241.72
 Acceptable21215.19
 Good54939.33
 Excellent51336.75
 Not answered805.73
How do you rate [how long it took for a health professional to call you back]?
 Very poor342.44
 Poor1057.52
 Acceptable32022.92
 Good35325.29
 Excellent36426.07
 Not applicable19213.75
 Not answered282.01
Were you happy with the type of care you received?
 Yes118785.03
 No14910.67
 Not answered604.30
How do you rate [the length of your consultation with the health professional]?
 Very poor433.08
 Poor543.87
 Acceptable30221.63
 Good48134.46
 Excellent45232.38
 Not answered644.58
Please rate the thoroughness of the consultation
 Very poor342.44
 Poor503.58
 Acceptable21315.26
 Good51937.18
 Excellent52537.61
 Not applicablea90.64
 Not answered463.30
Please rate the accuracy of the diagnosis
 Very poor352.51
 Poor664.73
 Acceptable20214.47
 Good48634.81
 Excellent46133.02
 Not applicablea715.09
 Not answered755.37
Please rate the treatment you were given
 Very poor443.15
 Poor584.15
 Acceptable18112.97
 Good42430.37
 Excellent45032.23
 Not applicablea16111.53
 Not answered785.59
Please rate the advice and information you were given
 Very poor423.01
 Poor644.58
 Acceptable19714.11
 Good49835.67
 Excellent51336.75
 Not applicablea161.15
 Not answered664.73
Please rate the warmth of the health professional’s manner
 Very poor322.29
 Poor533.8
 Acceptable17312.39
 Good43831.38
 Excellent64746.35
 Not applicablea40.29
 Not answered493.51
Please rate the extent to which you felt listened to
 Very poor342.44
 Poor503.58
 Acceptable16311.68
 Good47333.88
 Excellent62444.70
 Not applicablea30.21
 Not answered493.51
Please rate the extent to which you felt things were explained to you
 Very poor322.29
 Poor634.51
 Acceptable18313.11
 Good46333.17
 Excellent58341.76
 Not applicablea171.22
 Not answered553.94
Please rate the respect you were shown
 Very poor292.08
 Poor231.65
 Acceptable14710.53
 Good41829.94
 Excellent72451.86
 Not applicablea100.72
 Not answered453.22
a

’Not applicable’ was a response option that could be selected by respondents to these items.

From: Appendix 6, Chapter 11: supplementary tables

Cover of Improving patient experience in primary care: a multimethod programme of research on the measurement and improvement of patient experience
Improving patient experience in primary care: a multimethod programme of research on the measurement and improvement of patient experience.
Programme Grants for Applied Research, No. 5.9.
Burt J, Campbell J, Abel G, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2017 Apr.
Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. This work was produced by Burt et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.