• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of qualsafetyQuality and Safety in Health CareCurrent TOCInstructions for authors
Qual Saf Health Care. Dec 2002; 11(4): 315–319.
PMCID: PMC1758010

Comparison of patients' and general practitioners' evaluations of general practice care


Objectives: To compare patients' and general practitioners' (GPs') evaluations of the quality of general practice care.

Design: Written surveys among patients and GPs.

Setting: General practice in the Netherlands.

Subjects: 1772 patients (from 45 GPs) and a random sample of 315 GPs.

Main outcome measures: Patients' and GPs' evaluations of 23 aspects of general practice care and GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations using a 5 point scale.

Results: The response rate was 88% in the patient sample and 63% in the GP sample. The patients' ratings of care were significantly more positive (mean 4.0) than those of the GPs (mean 3.7) as well as GPs' perceptions of patients' evaluations (mean 3.5) (p<0.001). The overall rank order correlations between the patients' evaluations, GPs' evaluations, and GPs' perceptions of the patients' evaluations were 0.75 or higher (p<0.001). Patients and practitioners gave the most positive evaluations of specific aspects of the doctor-patient relationship ("keeping patients' records and data confidential", "listening to patients", and "making patients feel they had enough time during consultations") and aspects of the organisation of care ("provide quick service for urgent health problems" and "helpfulness of the staff (other than the doctor)"). The aspects of care evaluated least positively by patients as well as by GPs were other organisational aspects ("preparing patients for what to expect from specialist or hospital care" and "getting through to practice on the telephone").

Conclusions: GPs and patients have to some extent a shared perspective on general practice care. However, GPs were more critical about the quality of care than patients and they underestimated how positive patients were about the care they provide. Furthermore, specific aspects of care were evaluated differently, so surveys and other consultations with patients are necessary to integrate their perspective into quality improvement activities.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (97K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Richards T. Patients' priorities. BMJ. 1999 Jan 30;318(7179):277–277. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Williams B. Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc Sci Med. 1994 Feb;38(4):509–516. [PubMed]
  • Vuori H. Patient satisfaction--does it matter? Qual Assur Health Care. 1991;3(3):183–189. [PubMed]
  • Scott A, Smith RD. Keeping the customer satisfied: issues in the interpretation and use of patient satisfaction surveys. Int J Qual Health Care. 1994 Dec;6(4):353–359. [PubMed]
  • Weiss BD, Senf JH. Patient satisfaction survey instrument for use in health maintenance organizations. Med Care. 1990 May;28(5):434–445. [PubMed]
  • Merkel WT. Physician perception of patient satisfaction. Do doctors know which patients are satisfied? Med Care. 1984 May;22(5):453–459. [PubMed]
  • DiMatteo MR, DiNicola DD. Sources of assessment of physician performance: a study of comparative reliability and patterns of intercorrelation. Med Care. 1981 Aug;19(8):829–842. [PubMed]
  • Pascoe GC, Attkisson CC. The evaluation ranking scale: a new methodology for assessing satisfaction. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6(3-4):335–347. [PubMed]
  • Rashid A, Forman W, Jagger C, Mann R. Consultations in general practice: a comparison of patients' and doctors' satisfaction. BMJ. 1989 Oct 21;299(6706):1015–1016. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Hilton TF, Butler MC, Nice DS. Patient and provider satisfaction in Navy family practice and non-family practice clinics. J Fam Pract. 1984 Apr;18(4):569–573. [PubMed]
  • Wensing M, Grol R, van Montfort P, Smits A. Indicators of the quality of general practice care of patients with chronic illness: a step towards the real involvement of patients in the assessment of the quality of care. Qual Health Care. 1996 Jun;5(2):73–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Wensing M, Jung HP, Mainz J, Olesen F, Grol R. A systematic review of the literature on patient priorities for general practice care. Part 1: Description of the research domain. Soc Sci Med. 1998 Nov;47(10):1573–1588. [PubMed]
  • Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw H, Hjortdahl P, Olesen F, Ribacke M, Spenser T, Szécsényi J. Patients' priorities with respect to general practice care: an international comparison. European Task Force on Patient Evaluations of General Practice (EUROPEP). Fam Pract. 1999 Feb;16(1):4–11. [PubMed]
  • Jung HP, Wensing M, Grol R. What makes a good general practitioner: do patients and doctors have different views? Br J Gen Pract. 1997 Dec;47(425):805–809. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Jung HP, Van Horne F, Wensing M, Hearnshaw H, Grol R. Which aspects of general practitioners' behaviour determine patients' evaluations of care? Soc Sci Med. 1998 Oct;47(8):1077–1087. [PubMed]
  • Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Jung HP, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw H, Hjortdahl P, Olesen F, Reis S, Ribacke M, et al. Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison. Br J Gen Pract. 2000 Nov;50(460):882–887. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Solberg LI, Mosser G, McDonald S. The three faces of performance measurement: improvement, accountability, and research. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1997 Mar;23(3):135–147. [PubMed]

Articles from Quality & Safety in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group


Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...


  • PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...