Dataset Information

Patient experience feedback in UK hospitals: What types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES:The comparative uses of different types of patient experience (PE) feedback as data within quality improvement (QI) are poorly understood. This paper reviews what types are currently available and categorizes them by their characteristics in order to better understand their roles in QI. METHODS:A scoping review of types of feedback currently available to hospital staff in the UK was undertaken. This comprised academic database searches for "measures of PE outcomes" (2000-2016), and grey literature and websites for all types of "PE feedback" potentially available (2005-2016). Through an iterative consensus process, we developed a list of characteristics and used this to present categories of similar types. MAIN RESULTS:The scoping review returned 37 feedback types. A list of 12 characteristics was developed and applied, enabling identification of 4 categories that help understand potential use within QI-(1) Hospital-initiated (validated) quantitative surveys: for example the NHS Adult Inpatient Survey; (2) Patient-initiated qualitative feedback: for example complaints or twitter comments; (3) Hospital-initiated qualitative feedback: for example Experience Based Co-Design; (4) Other: for example Friends & Family Test. Of those routinely collected, few elicit "ready-to-use" data and those that do elicit data most suitable for measuring accountability, not for informing ward-based improvement. Guidance does exist for linking collection of feedback to QI for some feedback types in Category 3 but these types are not routinely used. CONCLUSION:If feedback is to be used more frequently within QI, more attention must be paid to obtaining and making available the most appropriate types.

SUBMITTER: Marsh C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6543142 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient experience feedback in UK hospitals: What types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?

Marsh Claire C Peacock Rosemary R Sheard Laura L Hughes Lesley L Lawton Rebecca R

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20190423 3

<h4>Background & objectives</h4>The comparative uses of different types of patient experience (PE) feedback as data within quality improvement (QI) are poorly understood. This paper reviews what types are currently available and categorizes them by their characteristics in order to better understand their roles in QI.<h4>Methods</h4>A scoping review of types of feedback currently available to hospital staff in the UK was undertaken. This comprised academic database searches for "measures of PE o ...[more]

PMID: 31016863

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveValid, reliable critical appraisal tools advance quality improvement (QI) intervention impacts by helping stakeholders identify higher quality studies. QI approaches are diverse and differ from clinical interventions. Widely used critical appraisal instruments do not take unique QI features into account and existing QI tools (eg, Standards for QI Reporting Excellence) are intended for publication guidance rather than critical appraisal. This study developed and psychometrically tested a critical appraisal instrument, the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for assessing QI-specific features of QI publications.MethodsApproaches to developing the tool and ensuring validity included a literature review, in-person and online survey expert panel input, and application to empirical examples. We investigated psychometric properties in a set of diverse QI publications (N=54) by analysing reliability measures and item endorsement rates and explored sources of disagreement between reviewers.ResultsThe QI-MQCS includes 16 content domains to evaluate QI intervention publications: Organisational Motivation, Intervention Rationale, Intervention Description, Organisational Characteristics, Implementation, Study Design, Comparator Description, Data Sources, Timing, Adherence/Fidelity, Health Outcomes, Organisational Readiness, Penetration/Reach, Sustainability, Spread and Limitations. Median inter-rater agreement for QI-MQCS items was κ 0.57 (83% agreement). Item statistics indicated sufficient ability to differentiate between publications (median quality criteria met 67%). Internal consistency measures indicated coherence without excessive conceptual overlap (absolute mean interitem correlation=0.19). The critical appraisal instrument is accompanied by a user manual detailing What to consider, Where to look and How to rate.ConclusionsWe developed a ready-to-use, valid and reliable critical appraisal instrument applicable to healthcare QI intervention publications, but recognise scope for continuing refinement.

Dataset Information

Patient experience feedback in UK hospitals: What types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?

Publications

Patient experience feedback in UK hospitals: What types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets