title: The development of a concise questionnaire designed to  measure perceived outcomes  on the issues of greatest  importance to patients.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To develop a concise patient feedback audit instrument designed to inform practice development on those issues of greatest importance to patients.
  
  
  METHODS
  A literature review was used to establish the issues which were of greatest importance to patients. Ten core questions were then designed with the help of an experienced survey and polling organisation. A challenging grading of patient responses was utilised in an attempt to differentiate perceived performance within a practice on the different aspects and between practices. A feasibility study was conducted using the interactive voice response mode with seven volunteer practices in 2009. The instrument was then used in the later part of 2010 by 61 practices mostly in paper-based format. Practices received feedback which is primarily based on a bar chart plotting their percentage of top grades received against a national reference sample (NRS) compiled from the results of other participating practices. A statistical analysis was conducted to establish the level at which an individual practice result becomes statistically significant against the NRS.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The 61 participating practices each received an average of 121 responses (total 7,381 responses). Seventy-four percent of responses across all ten questions received the top grade, 'ideal'. Statistical analysis indicated that at the level of 121 responses, a score of around 4-9% difference to the National Reference Sample, depending on the specific question, was statistically significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In keeping with international experience with dental patient feedback surveys this audit suggests high levels of patient satisfaction with their dental service. Nevertheless, by focusing results on the proportion of highest grades received, this instrument is capable of indicating when perceived performance falls significantly below the average. It can therefore inform practice development.
authors.affiliation: University of Birmingham, The Stables, Heritage Ct, Clifton Reynes, Olney, MK46 5FW. mikeb@denplan.co.uk
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Busby
authors.forename: F J T
authors.initials: FJ
authors.lastname: Burke
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Matthews
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Cyrta
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Mullins
mesh_terms: D002983:Clinical Competence; D003625:Data Collection; D003729:Dental Care / Q000592:standards*; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000592:standards; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires