Patient perceptions of hospital discharge: reliability and validity of a Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Review of the literature reveals a need to develop a questionnaire that measures patient perceptions of factors impacting continuity of care following discharge from hospital. Such a measure has the potential to guide quality improvement initiatives related to continuity of care. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop and examine the psychometric properties of a measure that would meet this need, the Patient Continuity of Care Questionnaire (PCCQ). METHOD: The PCCQ was administered to 204 inpatients 4 weeks after discharge. The questionnaire was assessed by item and principal components analysis. Factors derived from principal components analysis were assessed for internal consistency and construct validity. RESULTS: A principal components analysis resulted in six subscales including perceptions of: (1) relationships with providers in hospital, (2) information transfer to patients, (3) relationships with providers in community, (4) management of written forms, (5) management of follow-up and (6) management of communication among providers. These subscales were internally consistent in our sample and demonstrated construct validity through correlations with other related constructs. CONCLUSION: This initial study supports the reliability and validity of the PCCQ for measuring patient perceptions of factors central to continuity of care. The questionnaire subscales correspond to the theoretical components of continuity of care that have been proposed in the literature, namely informational, relational and management continuity. The subscales may be of value for identifying problems in continuity of care and for evaluating interventions aimed at improving continuity of care for patients after hospital discharge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".