Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

Nursing Evaluation

Nursing Evaluation

The evaluation stage signals the end of the nursing process. The nurse gathers evaluative data to assess whether or not the patient has attained the expected results. Whereas the nurse collects data in the nursing assessment to identify the patient's health concerns, the evaluation stage data determines if the indicated health issues are resolved. Evaluative data collection includes two sections: the data acquired to evaluate patient outcomes and the time criteria for data collection.
Section...

Data Validation

Data Validation

Data validation is an essential part of a comprehensive assessment. Validation is confirming or verifying and opening the door to gathering more assessment data as it clarifies vague or unclear data. The process of checking and verifying the collected information is called data validation. The primary purpose of data validation is to ensure data is as free from error, bias, and misinterpretation as possible.
Nursing assessment guides are generally based on holistic models rather than medical...

Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching III: Evaluation and Documentation

Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching III: Evaluation and Documentation

Evaluation of the teaching process enables the nurse to determine if the patient's learning needs were met and if training was effective. If the expected outcomes are not met, the care plan is revised, and additional education or reinforcement is provided. Nurses can ask questions after the session or obtain feedback to assess the patient's understanding of the topic.
Nurses can use several methods to evaluate patient outcomes. For example, oral questions can assess cognitive learning, patient...

Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System I: Subjective Data

Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System I: Subjective Data

Assessing the gastrointestinal (GI) system is a complex process that begins with collecting subjective data. This data, collected through patient interviews, provides crucial insights into the patient's health history, perception patterns, and lifestyle habits, all contributing significantly to GI health.
Health History
The initial step in assessing the GI system is obtaining a comprehensive health history. This includes inquiring about the patient's history or presence of problems related to...

Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model

Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model

The Self-Evaluation Maintenance (SEM) model offers a psychological framework to understand how individuals’ self-esteem is influenced by the achievements of others, particularly those with whom they share close personal bonds. The SEM model operates when personal rather than social identity guides individuals. Central to this model is the notion that individuals have an inherent desire to preserve a favorable self-image, which is continuously shaped by interpersonal comparisons and...

Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data

Assessment of the Cardiovascular System I: Subjective Data

A thorough health history and physical assessment are essential for identifying cardiovascular disease (CVD) symptoms and distinguishing them from other health issues.
Initial Enquiry
Ask the patient about their primary concern and thoroughly explore all reported symptoms.
Medical History
Investigate past illnesses affecting the cardiovascular system, such as angina, anemia, rheumatic fever, congenital heart disease, stroke, thrombophlebitis, dysrhythmias, varicosities
Inquire about symptoms...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 407 (FGE.407): 4-amino-5-(3-(isopropylamino)-2,2-dimethyl-3-oxopropoxy)-2-methylquinoline-3-carboxylic acid.

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority·2020

Same author

Safety assessment of the substance 'Tungsten Oxide' for use in food contact materials.

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority·2020

Same author

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 63, Revision 3 (FGE.63Rev3): aliphatic secondary alcohols, ketones and related esters evaluated by JECFA (59th and 69th meetings) structurally related to saturated and unsaturated aliphatic secondary alcohols, ketones and esters of secondary alcohols and saturated linear or branched-chain carboxylic acids evaluated by EFSA in FGE.07Rev4.

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority·2020

Same author

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme pullulanase from <i>Pullulanibacillus naganoensis</i> strain AE-PL.

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority·2020

Same author

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme peroxidase obtained from soybean (<i>Glycine max</i>) hulls.

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority·2020

Same author

Safety assessment of the mixture of methyl-branched and linear C<sub>14</sub>-C<sub>18</sub> alkanamides, derived from fatty acids, for use in food contact materials.

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority·2020

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: May 26, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Patient feedback in revalidation: an exploratory study using the consultation satisfaction questionnaire.

Richard Baker¹, Andrew Smith, Carolyn Tarrant

¹Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester. rb14@le.ac.uk

The British Journal of General Practice : the Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

|December 14, 2011

Summary

Patient feedback in UK doctor revalidation shows most patients are satisfied with GP consultations. However, feedback can identify doctors needing support, highlighting the need for agreed thresholds and weighting for patient experience in performance reviews.

More Related Videos

Using Simulation Models to Train Clinicians in the Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound

Using Simulation Models to Train Clinicians in the Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound

Published on: August 9, 2024

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: May 26, 2026

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

Using Simulation Models to Train Clinicians in the Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound

Using Simulation Models to Train Clinicians in the Use of Point-of-Care Ultrasound

Published on: August 9, 2024

Area of Science:

Medical Education
Health Services Research
General Practice

Background:

Revalidation is a UK process to ensure doctors are fit to practice.
Patient feedback is a component of the revalidation process.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate the role of patient feedback in the revalidation of General Practitioners (GPs).

Main Methods:

A cross-sectional survey of 6433 patients consulting 171 GPs was conducted.
Patients completed the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ).
Generalisability analysis and outlier identification were performed; patient comments were categorized.

Main Results:

Mean scores for general satisfaction, professional care, relationship, and perceived time were reported.
A D-study indicated 19 patient ratings achieve a generalisability coefficient of 0.80.
Fifteen GPs had scores below two standard deviations, with more negative comments.

Conclusions:

Most patients are satisfied with GP consultations, but formative feedback mechanisms are needed.
Patient feedback can identify GPs requiring educational support or remediation.
Agreed thresholds and weighting for patient experience in performance reviews are necessary.