Researchers in Germany built and road‑tested a tool that turns the idea of patient‑centred care into concrete, measurable questions—covering everything from communication and coordination to emotional support and safety.  

What’s new

A team at University Medical Center Hamburg‑Eppendorf created the Experienced Patient‑Centeredness Questionnaire (EPAT‑64), a single survey that captures 16 key areas of patient‑centred care (for example: clinician–patient communication, access to care, coordination and continuity, patient information and involvement, support for family and friends, empowerment, physical and emotional support). Each area is measured with four patient‑facing items on a six‑point agreement scale, plus “does not concern me” if something doesn’t apply. The goal: give clinics and hospitals a comprehensive, patient‑reported snapshot of how well care is centred on the person—not just the disease.  

How they tested it

Between 2020 and 2022, the authors surveyed adult inpatients and outpatients being treated for cardiovascular disease, cancer, musculoskeletal conditions, or mental health disorders across 24 care sites in and around Hamburg. In total, 1,092 outpatients and 931 inpatients were analysed (mean age ~53–56 years). The flow chart on page 4 of the paper shows how participants were invited and included. Using statistical checks common in scale development, the team confirmed the questionnaire’s structure and reliability. Notably, a “bifactor” model—which captures both an overall patient‑centredness score and the 16 specific domains—fit the data best (Table 3, page 9; Tables 4, pages 10–11).  

Key findings (plain language)

• High overall reliability. The single, overall patient‑centredness score was very consistent across respondents; reliability was about 0.87–0.91 (a strong result on a 0–1 scale). Domain‑level reliability varied—useful for spotting which areas distinguish providers best.  
• Measures experiences, not health status. The overall score correlated strongly with satisfaction with care (as you’d expect) but not with general health—evidence the tool captures what patients experienced rather than how sick they were.  
• Works across settings. Items showed high acceptability (very few missing answers). Some domains (for example, physical support) had more “does not concern me” responses among outpatients—sensible for people who didn’t need that type of help. Table 2 (pages 7–8) shows item‑by‑item performance.  

Why it matters

Patient‑centred care is a cornerstone of quality, but it’s hard to improve what you don’t measure. EPAT‑64 gives health systems a practical, modular way to:

• track the overall patient‑centredness of care over time,
• zoom in on specific domains (e.g., communication or coordination), and
• evaluate whether quality‑improvement efforts actually move the needle. The authors highlight uses ranging from frontline feedback to benchmarking and research.  

Caveats

This was a single‑region study conducted during the COVID‑19 era; the team couldn’t fully confirm that scores behave exactly the same across every disease group, and some items showed “ceiling effects” (many top scores), which can make it harder to spot differences in high‑performing clinics. The survey was developed in German; an English translation exists but still needs more testing in other countries and settings.  

Bottom line

EPAT‑64 turns patient‑centredness from a slogan into a scorecard patients complete—one that hospitals and clinics can use to see where they shine and where they need to do better. For patients, it’s another way to make sure what matters to you shows up in how care is designed and delivered.  

Source: Christalle E., Zeh S., Führes H., et al., BMJ Quality & Safety (2024). See Figure 1 (page 4) for study flow and Tables 2–4 (pages 7–11) for item performance, model fit and reliability.  

Note: This article is for information only and does not substitute for professional medical advice.