Table 2 Patients' experiences of care compared with audit assessments of organisational quality of stroke services.

	Hospitals n = 63	Overall organisational score		Five key features† of stroke unit organisation (58 sites with stroke unit)
		<median	⩾median	<5 features	All 5 features
		n = 31	n = 32	n = 20	n = 38
Overall patient experience score	Median score	71	75	71	76
	IQR score	65–77	70–81	65–76	70–80
	Spearman,* r (95% CI)	0.32 (0.07 to 0.53)		0.26 (0.01 to 0.48)
	p Value	0.01		0.05
Patient “quality of care” domain score	Median score	77	81	77	82
	IQR score	73–84	77–88	73–84	77–88
	Spearman, r (95% CI)	0.41 (0.18 to 0.60)		0.26 (0.01 to 0.48)
	p Value	0.001		0.05
Patient “information” domain score	Median score	62	66	62	65
	IQR score	56–65	58–75	57–66	58–73
	Spearman, r (95% CI)	0.27 (0.02 to 0.49)		0.17 (−0.09 to 0.40)
	p Value	0.03		0.21
Patient “relationships with staff” domain score	Median score	76	78	76	79
	IQR score	69–81	73–85	72–80	72–86
	Spearman, r (95% CI)	0.27 (0.02 to 0.49)		0.18 (−0.08 to 0.41)
	p Value	0.03		0.18

Results for the 670 responders were aggregated by hospital.

*Spearman coefficients were computed using actual overall organisational scores and the number of standard features of stroke unit organisation.

†These comprise: (1) consultant with specialist knowledge of stroke formally recognised as having main responsibility for stroke services; (2) stroke services has formal links with patient and carer organisations for communication on service provision, audit and future plans; (3) team meetings at least once a week for the interchange of information about individual patients; (4) patient‐orientated information literature displayed on unit/ward—either stroke‐specific or national/local guidelines/standards; and (5) inhouse programme for the continuing education of qualified staff in the management of stroke.