Table 1

Case study site selection considerations and sample matrix

HospitalNAD score*CQC scores†Score discrepancy (NAD vs CQC)Patient experienceStaff experienceDementia specialist ward in hospitalDementia lead present at either ward or directorate levelGeographical region (ie, sustainability and transformation plans region)
Friends and Family Test score: inpatientFriends and Family Test score: outpatientsFriends and Family Test score: staff—work
Site 1Including a range of scores:
  • High

  • Mixed

  • Low

Including a range of scores:
  • Outstanding

  • Good

  • Requires improvement

  • Inadequate

We aim to recruit a range of hospitals where there is ‘score discrepancy’ and where there is ‘no score discrepancy’ between the NAD and CQC scores.
Example 1 (discrepancy): NAD score is high, yet CQC score is inadequate.
Example 2 (no discrepancy): NAD score is low, and CQC score is inadequate.
Mix of high and low scores: ranging between 50% and 100%Yes or noYes or noFor example:
  • North

  • Midlands and East

  • South West

Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
  • *NAD: National Audit of Dementia: the scores are based on 24 hospitals randomly sampled from stratified lists of hospitals scoring low, mixed and high across three main domains of dementia care (governance, staff training and patient care) derived from the NAD in 2016 for our staff survey sample selection.

  • †CQC: Care Quality Commission: the score will be based on the Hospitals overall CQC score report: