16, the reviewers were using implicit judgements to score care in Table 15 but there were explicit standards set through the review criteria in Table 16. Judgement based holistic scale scoring tends to show larger at both ends of scoring than does ‘tails’ criterion scoring, which is unlikely to be influenced by outcome (Figures 8 11). For – care at the individual case level, reviewers using holistic methods can be very ‘poor’ critical, as some of our textual data shows, and the reverse is the case for good care. The criterion based review data that are presented in Table 16 are also shown in Figures 10 and 11. Table 16: Relationship between the mean criterion score (scaled to 100) and mortality group Staff type Condition Higher Lower Mean 95% P-value mortality mortality (n=4) (n=5) interval of the N; mean N; mean difference (SD) (SD) Doctors COPD 187; 77.33 67; 77.99 0.67 -5.63 to 0.796 (10.47) (7.85) 6.97 COPD 120; 74.26 124; 74.78 0.52 -9.09 to 0.895 (12.90) (9.31) 10.13 Clinical COPD 189; 73.63 147; 76.02 2.39 -5.54 to 0.499 (11.98) (9.73) 10.33 All staff COPD 496; 75.18 338; 75.96 0.78 -3.27 to 0.691 (11.77) (9.28) 4.83 Doctors Heart 163; 71.41 150; 77.90 6.49 1.52 to 0.016* (14.65) (9.23) 11.46 Failure Heart 10; 79.00 61; 74.96 -4.04 -20.39 to 0.399 (7.74) (8.72) 12.31 Failure Clinical Heart 135; 80.0 42; 80.65 0.65 -2.98 to 0.664 (5.62) 3.86) 4.27 Failure
16, the reviewers were using implicit judgements to score care in Table 15 but there were explicit standards set through the review criteria in Table 16. Judgement based holistic scale scoring tends to show larger ‘tails’ at both ends of scoring than does criterion scoring, which is unlikely to be influenced by outcome (Figures 8 – 11). For ‘poor’ care at the individual case level, reviewers using holistic methods can be very critical, as some of our textual data shows, and the reverse is the case for good care. The criterion based review data that are presented in Table 16 are also shown in Figures 10 and 11. Table 16: Relationship between the mean criterion score (scaled to 100) and mortality group Staff type Condition Higher mortality (n=4) N; mean (SD) Lower mortality (n=5) N; mean (SD) Mean 95% interval of the difference P-value Doctors COPD 187; 77.33 (10.47) 67; 77.99 (7.85) 0.67 -5.63 to 6.97 0.796 COPD 120; 74.26 (12.90) 124; 74.78 (9.31) 0.52 -9.09 to 10.13 0.895 Clinical COPD 189; 73.63 (11.98) 147; 76.02 (9.73) 2.39 -5.54 to 10.33 0.499 All staff COPD 496; 75.18 (11.77) 338; 75.96 (9.28) 0.78 -3.27 to 4.83 0.691 Doctors Heart Failure 163; 71.41 (14.65) 150; 77.90 (9.23) 6.49 1.52 to 11.46 0.016* Heart Failure 10; 79.00 (7.74) 61; 74.96 (8.72) -4.04 -20.39 to 12.31 0.399 Clinical Heart Failure 135; 80.0 (5.62) 42; 80.65 3.86) 0.65 -2.98 to 4.27 0.664
eThesis.docx