Patient experience measurement comparators
Insights for Designing Measurement Architecture
Learn about selected international patient-experience measurements and the practical lessons they offer for measurement design.
| Comparator | What it is | Best question it answers | What it teaches |
|---|---|---|---|
| HCAHPS | US national standardised adult inpatient experience survey, with controlled methods and rolling four-quarter public reporting for fair hospital comparison. | How do we make hospital patient-experience comparison credible? | Benchmark discipline: a stable core survey, standard method, fair comparison rules, and transparent reporting. |
| e-Satis France | National family of sector-specific hospital PREM/satisfaction surveys, with raw local feedback, annual adjusted results, and free-text analysis. | How can one programme provide rapid feedback hospitals can act on now, while also producing a fair annual public comparison? | Two-speed feedback discipline: continuous local feedback and free text for improvement, alongside adjusted annual results for fair benchmarking. |
| Danish LUP | National patient-experience programme with setting-specific streams, a national core and local-question options, monthly feedback, and annual comparison. | How can one national programme support a common benchmark core and more timely local learning across different care settings? | Programme-family discipline: combine a protected core with setting-specific streams and governed local questions; use monthly results to improve services and annual aggregated results to compare performance fairly. |
| CAHPS Principles | US survey-design principles behind CAHPS instruments. | How should we phrase questions so patients can report what they actually experienced? | Question-writing discipline: ask about care patients can observe, use clear timeframes, focus on what matters to patients, and keep a standard core for comparison. |
| OECD PaRIS | International PREM/PROM survey for people with chronic conditions managed in primary/ambulatory care. | How do we measure the impact of care over time, not just visit or service satisfaction? | Longitudinal-care lens: move beyond visit satisfaction to whether care is coordinated, person-centred, trusted, and supports self-management over time. |
| NHS National Surveys | England national patient survey programme with trust/site benchmark reports, subgroup analysis, open datasets, and regulatory use. | How can national surveys become actionable system intelligence? | System-intelligence discipline: turn survey results into benchmark reports, equity insight, regulatory intelligence, and improvement action. |
| NHS Friends and Family Test | Continuous simple feedback mechanism across NHS services, with free text and local improvement use. | How can patients shape their care experience through fast feedback while it still matters? | Continuous-feedback discipline: use always-available feedback and free text for fast local improvement, without treating it as a fair benchmark. |
| PREM-SG | Singapore chronic-disease PREM adapted from PaRIS and Norwegian PREMs including GS-PEQ and PEQ-GP. | How do we localise international PREM concepts for Singapore chronic care? | Local adaptation discipline: Singapore language and cultural adaptation, chronic-disease focus, patient testing, and psychometric validation. |
| GS-PEQ | Short generic Norwegian patient-experience questionnaire used as one source in PREM-SG adaptation. | How short can a generic PREM be while still covering useful experience constructs? | Compact generic PREM design: short, plain-language items that can work across services if locally adapted and tested. |