How Many Patients Are Needed to Provide Reliable Evaluations of Individual Clinicians?

Published in: Medical Care, v. 42, no. 3, Mar. 2004, p. 259-266

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2004

by Eugene C. Nelson, Mary A. Gentry, Kathryn H. Mook, Karen Spritzer, John H. Higgins, Ron D. Hays

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.lww-medicalcare.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine how many patients are needed to provide reliable patient ratings of care at the individual clinician level. SETTING AND SOURCES OF DATA: The study was conducted in an academic medical center and was based on analysis of 34,985 patients who completed a 50-item survey rating the care received during a recent outpatient visit to a physician or midlevel provider. STUDY DESIGN: Analyses of patient satisfaction surveys was done to: 1) confirm the dimensions of satisfaction with outpatient care in an existing measure, and 2) determine the number of patients required to provide reliable estimates of clinician care for single items and an 11-item composite scale. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Factor analysis showed that the survey measured 2 dimensions of satisfaction: 1) clinician care, and 2) features of visiting the office. The 11-item clinician care scale had high reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.97). The number of patients needed to achieve reliability of 0.80 at the clinician level was 66 for the 11-item scale and ranged from 52 to 91 for individual items. For primary care physicians only, the comparable number of patients per clinician was 77 for the 11-item scale and ranged from 50 to 147 across items. CONCLUSIONS: For the survey items that the authors analyzed, the answer to the question How many patients are needed to obtain useful and reliable feedback? is at least 50, but varies by item type (global vs. specific) and by number of items (composite scale or single-item rating) and by the conditions of use (for self-assessment and learning or reward and punishment).

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.