TY - JOUR T1 - Measuring patient satisfaction JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 50 LP - 51 DO - 10.3399/bjgp08X263820 VL - 58 IS - 546 AU - Roy Powell Y1 - 2008/01/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/58/546/50.abstract N2 - In the September issue of BJGP, Hankins et al published a brief report1 criticising the reliability and validity of the two survey instruments which are used for measuring patient satisfaction (the (Improving Practice Questionnaire [IPQ] and the General Practice Assessment Questionnaire [GPAQ]) in general practices nationally in order to monitor the quality of services and earn QOF points. I have only been involved in the development of the IPQ and so I will restrict my comments to the reliability and validity of that instrument, and not the GPAQ.Hankins et al conducted a literature search based on the names of the questionnaires IPQ, GPAQ, and GPAS (the forerunner of GPAQ). They only found one paper about the IPQ,2 none for GPAQ and three papers for GPAS. They also hand-searched journals.If they had been more thorough, they would have discovered that the IPQ had been previously validated in Australia3 where it was known as PAIS (Practice Accreditation and Improvement Survey) and that its core consists of the 12 items that comprise another instrument called DISQ (Doctor's Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire)4–6 which, in spite of its name, can be used to assess any clinicians' capability. There are several papers demonstrating that the DISQ has validity against external criteria, for example against the assessments of College examiners.7–9The IPQ had also been assessed … ER -