PREM vs Patient Satisfaction Surveys: How to Measure Patient Experience

This Donabedian distinction is key to understanding why PREMs are more useful for continuous improvement. An outcome indicator — such as satisfaction — tells you whether the patient was happy. A process indicator — such as a PREM — tells you exactly what happened during care: whether the treatment was explained, whether the patient could easily contact the team, whether they felt equipped to manage their illness at home. The former measures the effect; the latter identifies the causes.

There is another added problem: satisfaction surveys tend to be one-off events — an annual survey, a small sample, a standard form identical for A&E and outpatient clinics — while patient experience varies enormously depending on the care process, the service, the moment of the episode and the patient's profile. A generic, sporadic tool cannot capture that variability.

PREMs overcome the structural limitations of satisfaction surveys across four key dimensions:

The difference between "How would you rate the care you received?" and "Did the staff explain in clear language what was going to happen during the procedure?" is radical. The first question invites a global emotional assessment, which will be contaminated by the patient's mood, their prior expectation level and social desirability bias. The second question asks the patient to recall a specific fact: whether it happened or did not happen.

This reduces bias and increases the usefulness of the data. If 40% of patients respond that they did not receive a clear explanation before the procedure, the team knows exactly what to improve. A satisfaction score of 7.8 out of 10 does not offer that information.

Well-designed PREMs structure the patient's experience into dimensions that correspond to concrete and improvable aspects of the care process. The SECA Guide 2025 identifies six standard PREM dimensions: understanding (did the patient understand their process and treatment?), treatment (were they respected and treated with dignity?), trust (did the professional generate closeness and security?), patient empowerment (did the patient acquire skills to manage their illness?), emotional wellbeing (were they supported so the illness did not control their life?) and availability and accessibility (could they contact the team when needed?).

Each of these dimensions can yield a different result within the same service. A team may score very well on treatment and very poorly on patient empowerment. That granularity is impossible to obtain with a global satisfaction survey.

A generic satisfaction survey applies the same questions to a patient who has just come through A&E as to one who has been in ambulatory follow-up for a chronic disease for six months. PREMs are designed and validated for specific processes: there are PREMs for hospitalisation, outpatient consultations, A&E, day surgery and home therapies. The relevant questions — and the touchpoints that matter — are different in each context.

Satisfaction surveys are used primarily for accountability: demonstrating that the centre has a high satisfaction index, publishing the figure in the annual report, comparing with the previous year. PREMs are designed for something different: to close the improvement loop. Continuous and specific patient feedback facilitates rapid adjustments in clinical practice, promoting more effective and patient-centred care.

The following table summarises the differences between both instruments across the most relevant criteria for decision-making in healthcare management:

This comparison does not aim to claim that satisfaction surveys have no value at all. For certain objectives — cross-country comparisons, publication of aggregated data for public transparency, evaluation of institutional image — they may still be useful. But for the objective that matters most in an organisation that wants to improve healthcare quality systematically — identifying what to change, where and how — PREMs are incomparably more powerful instruments.

The transition from a measurement model based on satisfaction to one based on PREMs is not just a change of questionnaire: it is a paradigm shift in what patient experience measurement is for. These are the practical keys to making that transition successfully:

The first step is to clarify what you want to achieve with the measurement. If the objective is to improve specific processes and generate concrete improvement actions, PREMs are the appropriate tool. If the objective is to monitor institutional image or compare with national indices, it may be useful to maintain some overall satisfaction indicator in parallel. What matters is not confusing the two objectives and not using an instrument designed for one when the other is needed.

There are internationally validated PREM tools with proven methodological rigour. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire (PPE-15 and PPE-33) is the most widely used in hospitalisation and evaluates six dimensions: access to care, communication with the team, care coordination, emotional support, participation in decisions and continuity. For chronic patients in ambulatory follow-up, the IEXPAC and the PACIC are references. For primary care, EUROPEP covers 23 items across four dimensions using a Likert scale. For specific processes such as A&E or day surgery, the trend is towards PREMs designed and validated specifically for those contexts.

One of the most frequent mistakes when implementing PREMs is treating them like an annual survey. Patient experience measurement must be continuously open to all patients attending the organisation, ideally administered shortly after the care contact to capture fresh and precise impressions. Only systematic and continuous measurement allows trends to be detected, the impact of organisational changes to be identified, and improvement to be maintained over time.

Measuring patient experience does not by itself guarantee its improvement. Measurement is a tool for detecting aspects that need to improve and for making informed decisions. The data must be translated into a concrete action, and that action must be evaluated. Without that closed loop — measure, act, measure again — PREMs become another survey that is archived without consequences. Current technology enables the automated statistical analysis of quantitative data and the use of artificial intelligence for the interpretation of qualitative responses, leaving the final decision in the hands of professionals.

RateNow facilitates the design and implementation of validated PREMs for any care process, with omnichannel digital administration, real-time analytics and tools to close the continuous improvement loop.

→ Request a free demo at sales@ratenow.cx

1. Pérez A, Bezos Daleske C, Begelle R. Herramientas, facilitadores y barreras: PREM. In: Varela Rodríguez C (ed.). Guía para la Implementación de Asistencia Sanitaria Basada en Valor. Madrid: SECA; 2025. Ch. 2.9:373-397.

2. De Rosis S, Cerasuolo D, Nuti S. Using patient-reported measures to drive change in healthcare: the experience of the digital, continuous and systematic PREMs observatory in Italy. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:315.

3. Rudilla D, Moros V, Lalanza S, et al. Development and validation of PROM and PREM in home respiratory therapies. Open Respir Arch. 2021;3(4):100132.

4. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Bruster S. The Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire: development and validation. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14(5):353-8.

5. Gleeson H, et al. Systematic review of approaches to using patient-reported experience measures for quality improvement. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2016;1:5.

6. Duncan EAS, Murray J. Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using PREM in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019;3:36.

7. Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya (AQuAS). Elementos clave que influyen en la experiencia del paciente (PREM). Barcelona: AQuAS; 2020.