Bombard Y, Baker GR, Orlando E, Fancott C, Bhatia P, Casalino S, Onate K, Denis JL, Pomey MP. Engaging patients to improve quality of care: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2018; 13:(1)

Bowling A. Evaluating Health Services: multidisciplinary collaboration, 4th edn. New York (NY): Open University Press; 2014a

Bowling A. Data collection methods in quantitative research: Questionnaires, interviews and their response rates, 4th edn. New York (NY): Open University Press; 2014b

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3

British Society of Urogynaecology and Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist. Joint guidance on management of urogynaecological conditions and vaginal pessary use during the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2021. (accessed 9 June 2023)

Cooper J, Annappa M, Quigley A, Dracocardos D, Bondili A, Mallen C. Prevalence of female urinary incontinence and its impact on quality of life in a cluster population in the United Kingdom (UK): a community survey. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2015; 16:(4)377-82

Collins S. Explanations in consultations: the combined effectiveness of doctors' and nurses' communication with patients. Med Educ. 2005; 39:(8)785-96

The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. 2018. (accessed 9 June 2023)

Curtis EA, Redmond RA. Survey postal questionnaire: optimising response and dealing with non-response. Nurse Res. 2009; 16:(2)76-88

Dumoulin C, Hunter KF, Moore K Conservative management for female urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse review 2013: Summary of the 5th International Consultation on Incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 35:(1)15-20

Farage M.A., Miller K.W., Berardesca E. Psychosocial and societal burden of incontinence in the aged population: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;

Hatchett R, McLaren S., Corrigan P, Filer L. Congenital heart: nursing evaluation. Int J Nurs Pract. 2015; 21:556-565

Health Research Authority. Is my study research? Defining research. 2022. (accessed 9 June 2023)

Hess R, Huang AJ, Richter HE Long-term efficacy and safety of questionnaire-based initiation of urgency urinary incontinence treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209:(3)244.e1-9

Hunt K, Lathlean K. Sampling, 7th edn. In: Gerrish K, Lathlean J, Cormack D. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Blackwell; 2015

Jones M, Rattray J. Questionnaire Design, 7th edn. In: Gerrish K, Lathlean J, Cormack D. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Blackwell; 2015

Jones G, Brennan V, Jacques R, Wood H, Dixon S, Radley S. Evaluating the impact of a ‘virtual clinic’ on patient experience, personal and provider costs of care in urinary incontinence: A randomised controlled trial. PLoS One. 2018; 13:(1)

Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003; 15:(3)261-6

The King's Fund. Admin matters: the impact of administration on patient care. 2021. (accessed 9 June 2023)

McGlynn B, White L, Smith K A service evaluation describing a nurse-led prostate cancer service in NHS, Ayrshire and Arran. Int J Urol Nurs. 2014; 8:(3)166-180

Moule P, Aveyard H, Goodman M. Survey Design and Questionnaires, 3rd edn. London: Sage; 2017

National Research Ethics Service. Defining research. 2014. (accessed 9 June 2023)

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management (NG123). 2019. (accessed 9 June 2023)

NHS England/NHS Improvement. The NHS Long Term Plan. 2019. (accessed …)

NHS Surveys. The outpatient survey. 2011. (accessed 9 June 2023)

Nursing and Midwifery Council. The code: professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses, midwives and nursing associates. 2018. (accessed 9 June 2023)

Oliver R, Thakar R, Sultan AH Urogynecology triage clinic: a model of healthcare delivery. Int Urogynecol J. 2009; 20:913-917

Pizzol D, Demurtas J, Celotto S, Maggi S, Smith L, Angiolelli G, Trott M, Yang L, Veronese N. Urinary incontinence and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2021; 33:(1)25-35

Randall DM, Fernandes MF. The social desirability response bias in ethics research. J Bus Ethics. 1991; 10:805-817

Serna-Gallegos T, Ninivaggio CS. A lasting impression: telemedicine in urogynecology during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 32:(6)456-460

Siedlecki SL, Butler RS, Burchill CN. Survey design research: a tool for answering nursing research questions. Clin Nurse Spec. 2015; 29:(4)E1-8

Sinclair AJ, Ramsay IN. The psychosocial impact of urinary incontinence in women. Obstetrician Gynaecologist. 2011; 133:143-148

Solomon DJ. Conducting web-based surveys. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation. 2001; 7

A specialist service evaluation: a cross-sectional survey approach

22 June 2023
Volume 32 · Issue 12


This article presents the findings of a service evaluation of a specialist urogynaecology service and highlights the implications for nursing practice. Aims: To evaluate the overall patient experience and the degree to which individual needs were being met, and make improvements to service delivery. Method: A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was sent to a random sample of women (n=350) who were registered on the electronic patient record system from January to June 2020. Two items on the questionnaire related specifically to communication with patients during the first COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020. Routine service data were collected and included in descriptive statistical analysis. Qualitative themes were thematically analysed. Results: The response rate was 39% (n=137). More than 90% of respondents felt listened to during consultations with nursing and medical personnel, and had trust and confidence in their clinical expertise, felt involved with decisions about care and felt comfortable with intimate examinations. Negative responses related to poor communication with administration and rescheduling appointments. Conclusion: Findings resulted in a departmental review of admin processes, which resulted in improvements to administrative systems, staff training, communication and information giving, and directly benefited patients.

Service evaluations (SEs) adopt rigorous, scientific methods to collect data about the effectiveness of services in a systematic way (Bowling, 2014a). They seek to understand the value and worth of a service, and the extent to which it is meeting its aims. The findings of these evaluations generate evidence to improve quality of care delivery and inform local decision making (National Research Ethics Service, 2014). As a SE does not involve randomisation or a change in routine care or treatment ethical approval is not required (Health Research Authority, 2022). At the heart of SEs is patient engagement, a key component to improving healthcare services and appraising quality (Bombard et al, 2018). Nurses can consider SEs as a useful tool in their practice. Evidence generated facilitates quality improvement initiatives and directly impacts patient care.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Nursing and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for nurses. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to clinical or professional articles

  • Unlimited access to the latest news, blogs and video content