Admission and Initial Overall Total Investigations management phase (%) phase phase phase (%) (%) (%) (%) Doctors (n = 330 reviews) Number of 320 323 300 322 1265 completed rating (97) (98) (91) (98) (96) scales Missing data 10 7 30 8 55 (3) (2) (9) (2) (4) Non-clinical audit (n = 70 reviews) Number of 69 70 68 70 277 completed rating (99) (100) (97) (100) (99) scales Missing data 1 0 2 0 3 (1) (0) (3) (0) (1) Clinical (n = 180 reviews) Number of 170 172 170 171 708 completed rating (99) (100) (99) (99) (99) scales 2 0 2 1 4 Missing data (1) (0) (1) (1) (1) Intra-rater consistency in holistic reviews Across all three staff types there were statistically significant correlations (r>0.71, p<0.001) between the mean scale score ratings that reviewers assigned to the individual phases of care and their rating of the overall quality of care, indicating a fair to good level of intra-rater consistency in rating the quality of care using holistic review scale scores (Table 5). Reviewers appeared to be relatively consistent in the way that they scored quality of care for the phases of care in a case and then gave an overall assessment score for the episode of care.
Admission and Investigations phase (%) Initial management phase (%) phase (%) Overall phase (%) Total (%) Doctors (n = 330 reviews) Number of completed rating scales 320 (97) 323 (98) 300 (91) 322 (98) 1265 (96) Missing data 10 (3) 7 (2) 30 (9) 8 (2) 55 (4) Non-clinical audit (n = 70 reviews) Number of completed rating scales 69 (99) 70 (100) 68 (97) 70 (100) 277 (99) Missing data 1 (1) 0 (0) 2 (3) 0 (0) 3 (1) Clinical (n = 180 reviews) Number of completed rating scales 170 (99) 172 (100) 170 (99) 171 (99) 708 (99) Missing data 2 (1) 0 (0) 2 (1) 1 (1) 4 (1) Intra-rater consistency in holistic reviews Across all three staff types there were statistically significant correlations (r>0.71, p<0.001) between the mean scale score ratings that reviewers assigned to the individual phases of care and their rating of the overall quality of care, indicating a fair to good level of intra-rater consistency in rating the quality of care using holistic review scale scores (Table 5). Reviewers appeared to be relatively consistent in the way that they scored quality of care for the phases of care in a case and then gave an overall assessment score for the episode of care.