Mean ratings/scores of overall quality of care: comparison of two review methods
| Staff type | No. of holistic and criterion-based reviews (and review staff)* | Holistic mean rating of overall quality of care† (95% CI) | Criterion-based review mean score as a percentage of total criteria‡ (95% CI) | Mean difference (95% CI) | p Value for difference |
| Doctor | 462 (16) | 76.8 (72.2 to 81.4) | 78.7 (77.1 to 80.4) | −1.9 (−6.7 to 2.9) | 0.406 |
| Nurse/other clinical | 428 (14) | 71.2 (66.4 to 76.0) | 77.5 (75.0 to 80.1) | −6.3 (−10.5 to −2.2) | 0.005 |
| Non-clinical audit | 219 (8) | 78.5 (74.7 to 82.3) | 75.4 (71.1 to 79.7) | 3.1 (−2.4 to 8.5) | 0.223 |
| All staff | 1109 (38) | 75.0 (72.3 to 77.6) | 77.6 (76.2 to 79.0) | −2.6 (−5.4 to 0.1) | 0.057 |
All CIs and p values are adjusted for clustering by staff type.
↵* Numbers of reviews used in tables 1 and 2 differ slightly because of small amounts of missing data.
↵† Reviewers rated the overall quality of care on a 10-point scale from 1 (unsatisfactory) to 10 (very best care). This was converted to a percentage for comparison with criterion-based review data.
↵‡ Scores are shown as percentages out of 32 criteria (where patient is a current or ex-smoker) or out of 31 criteria (where patient is a non-smoker).