Dataset Information

The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Patient feedback is considered integral to quality improvement and professional development. However, while popular across the educational continuum, evidence to support its efficacy in facilitating positive behaviour change in a postgraduate setting remains unclear. This review therefore aims to explore the evidence that supports, or refutes, the impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors.Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies assessing the impact of patient feedback on medical performance published in the English language between 2006-2016. Impact was defined as a measured change in behaviour using Barr's (2000) adaptation of Kirkpatrick's four level evaluation model. Papers were quality appraised, thematically analysed and synthesised using a narrative approach.From 1,269 initial studies, 20 articles were included (qualitative (n=8); observational (n=6); systematic review (n=3); mixed methodology (n=1); randomised control trial (n=1); and longitudinal (n=1) design). One article identified change at an organisational level (Kirkpatrick level 4); six reported a measured change in behaviour (Kirkpatrick level 3b); 12 identified self-reported change or intention to change (Kirkpatrick level 3a), and one identified knowledge or skill acquisition (Kirkpatrick level 2). No study identified a change at the highest level, an improvement in the health and wellbeing of patients. The main factors found to influence the impact of patient feedback were: specificity; perceived credibility; congruence with physician self-perceptions and performance expectations; presence of facilitation and reflection; and inclusion of narrative comments. The quality of feedback facilitation and local professional cultures also appeared integral to positive behaviour change.Patient feedback can have an impact on medical performance. However, actionable change is influenced by several contextual factors and cannot simply be guaranteed. Patient feedback is likely to be more influential if it is specific, collected through credible methods and contains narrative information. Data obtained should be fed back in a way that facilitates reflective discussion and encourages the formulation of actionable behaviour change. A supportive cultural understanding of patient feedback and its intended purpose is also essential for its effective use.

SUBMITTER: Baines R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6069829 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review.

Baines Rebecca R Regan de Bere Sam S Stevens Sebastian S Read Jamie J Marshall Martin M Lalani Mirza M Bryce Marie M Archer Julian J

BMC medical education 20180731 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patient feedback is considered integral to quality improvement and professional development. However, while popular across the educational continuum, evidence to support its efficacy in facilitating positive behaviour change in a postgraduate setting remains unclear. This review therefore aims to explore the evidence that supports, or refutes, the impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors.<h4>Methods</h4>Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Med ...[more]

PMID: 30064413

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo summarise evidence on intrawork breaks and their associated effect on doctors' well-being and/or performance at work.DesignSystematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement guidelines DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection) and PsychINFO were systematically searched on 6 June 2021.Eligibility criteriaNo restrictions were placed on language, study design or date of publication.Data extraction and analysisMethodological quality was appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB-2), Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies (ROBINS-I), and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for cross-sectional, cohort and qualitative studies. Quantitative synthesis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity of design and outcomes. Results are presented narratively.ResultsDatabase searches returned 10 557 results and searches of other sources returned two additional records. Thirty-two papers were included in the systematic review, comprised of 29 unique studies, participants and topics and 3 follow-up studies. A variety of well-being and performance outcome measures were used. Overall, findings indicate that intrawork breaks improved some measures of well-being and/or work performance. However, methodological quality was judged to be low with a high risk of bias in most included studies.DiscussionUsing existing evidence, it is not possible to conclude with confidence whether intrawork breaks improve well-being and/or work performance in doctors. There is much inconsistency regarding how breaks are defined, measured and the outcomes used to assess effectiveness. Future research should seek to: (a) define and standardise the measurement of breaks, (b) use valid, reliable outcome measures to evaluate their impact on well-being and performance and (c) minimise the risk of bias in studies where possible.Prospero registration numberCRD42020156924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156924.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the literature for evidence that workplace based assessment affects doctors' education and performance.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesThe primary data sources were the databases Journals@Ovid, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC. Evidence based reviews (Bandolier, Cochrane Library, DARE, HTA Database, and NHS EED) were accessed and searched via the Health Information Resources website. Reference lists of relevant studies and bibliographies of review articles were also searched. Review methods Studies of any design that attempted to evaluate either the educational impact of workplace based assessment, or the effect of workplace based assessment on doctors' performance, were included. Studies were excluded if the sampled population was non-medical or the study was performed with medical students. Review articles, commentaries, and letters were also excluded. The final exclusion criterion was the use of simulated patients or models rather than real life clinical encounters.ResultsSixteen studies were included. Fifteen of these were non-comparative descriptive or observational studies; the other was a randomised controlled trial. Study quality was mixed. Eight studies examined multisource feedback with mixed results; most doctors felt that multisource feedback had educational value, although the evidence for practice change was conflicting. Some junior doctors and surgeons displayed little willingness to change in response to multisource feedback, whereas family physicians might be more prepared to initiate change. Performance changes were more likely to occur when feedback was credible and accurate or when coaching was provided to help subjects identify their strengths and weaknesses. Four studies examined the mini-clinical evaluation exercise, one looked at direct observation of procedural skills, and three were concerned with multiple assessment methods: all these studies reported positive results for the educational impact of workplace based assessment tools. However, there was no objective evidence of improved performance with these tools.ConclusionsConsidering the emphasis placed on workplace based assessment as a method of formative performance assessment, there are few published articles exploring its impact on doctors' education and performance. This review shows that multisource feedback can lead to performance improvement, although individual factors, the context of the feedback, and the presence of facilitation have a profound effect on the response. There is no evidence that alternative workplace based assessment tools (mini-clinical evaluation exercise, direct observation of procedural skills, and case based discussion) lead to improvement in performance, although subjective reports on their educational impact are positive.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The well-being of doctors is at risk, as evidenced by high burnout rates amongst doctors around the world. Alarmingly, burned-out doctors are more likely to exhibit low levels of professionalism and provide suboptimal patient care. Research suggests that burnout and the well-being of doctors can be improved by mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs). Furthermore, MBIs may improve doctors' performance (eg in empathy). However, there are no published systematic reviews that clarify the effects of MBIs on doctor well-being or performance to inform future research and professional development programmes. We therefore systematically reviewed and narratively synthesised findings on the impacts of MBIs on doctors' well-being and performance. METHODS:We searched PubMed and PsycINFO from inception to 9 May 2018 and independently reviewed studies investigating the effects of MBIs on doctor well-being or performance. We systematically extracted data and assessed study quality according to the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI), and narratively reported study findings. RESULTS:We retrieved a total of 934 articles, of which 24 studies met our criteria; these included randomised, (un)controlled or qualitative studies of average quality. Effects varied across MBIs with different training contents or formats: MBIs including essential mindfulness training elements, or employing group-based training, mostly showed positive effects on the well-being or performance of doctors across different educational and hospital settings. Doctors perceived both benefits (enhanced self- and other-understanding) and challenges (time limitations and feasibility) associated with MBIs. Findings were subject to the methodological limitations of studies (eg the use of self-selected participants, lack of placebo interventions, use of self-reported outcomes). CONCLUSIONS:This review indicates that doctors can perceive positive impacts of MBIs on their well-being and performance. However, the evidence was subject to methodological limitations and does not yet support the standardisation of MBIs in professional development programmes. Rather, health care organisations could consider including group-based MBIs as voluntary modules for doctors with specific well-being needs or ambitions regarding professional development.

Project description:IntroductionUnderperformance by doctors poses a risk to patient safety. Remediation is an intervention designed to remedy underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Remediation is widely used across healthcare systems globally, and has clear implications for both patient safety and doctor retention. Yet, there is a poor evidence base to inform remediation programmes. In particular, there is a lack of understanding as to why and how a remedial intervention may work to change a doctor's practice. The aim of this research is to identify why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to support patient safety.Methods and analysisRealist review is an approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to develop programme theories about how an intervention works to produce its effects. The initial search strategy will involve: database and grey literature searching, citation searching and contacting authors. The evidence search will be extended as the review progresses and becomes more focused on the development of specific aspects of the programme theory. The development of the programme theory will involve input from a stakeholder group consisting of professional experts in the remediation process and patient representatives. Evidence synthesis will use a realist logic of analysis to interrogate data in order to develop and refine the initial programme theory into a more definitive realist programme theory of how remediation works. The study will follow and be reported according to Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses-Evolving Standards (RAMESES).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Our dissemination strategy will include input from our stakeholder group. Customised outputs will be developed using the knowledge-to-action cycle framework, and will be targeted to: policy-makers; education providers and regulators, the National Health Service, doctors and academics.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088779.

Project description:ObjectivesTo review the characteristics and motivations of patients seeking second opinions, and the impact of such opinions on patient management, satisfaction and cost effectiveness.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PsycINFO and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) databases.Study designA systematic literature search was performed for terms related to second opinion and patient characteristics. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.Data collection/extraction methodsWe included articles focused on patient-initiated second opinions, which provided quantitative data on their impact on diagnosis, treatment, prognosis or patient satisfaction, described the characteristics or motivating factors of patients who initiated a second opinion, or the cost-effectiveness of patient-initiated second opinions.Principal findingsThirty-three articles were included in the review. 29 studies considered patient characteristics, 19 patient motivating factors, 10 patient satisfaction and 17 clinical agreement between the first and second opinion. Seeking a second opinion was more common in women, middle-age patients, more educated patients; and in people having a chronic condition, with higher income or socioeconomic status or living in central urban areas. Patients seeking a second opinion sought to gain more information or reassurance about their diagnosis or treatment. While many second opinions confirm the original diagnosis or treatment, discrepancies in opinions had a potential major impact on patient outcomes in up to 58% of cases. No studies reported on the cost effectiveness of patient initiated second opinions.ConclusionsThis review identified several demographic factors associated with seeking a second opinion, including age, gender, health status, and socioeconomic status. Differences in opinion received, and in the impact of change in opinion, varies significantly between medical specialties. More research is needed to understand the cost effectiveness of second opinions and identify patient groups most likely to benefit from second opinions.

Project description:BackgroundThere is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures.MethodsA systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available.ResultsOf 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review.ConclusionsPeer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

Dataset Information

The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review.

Publications

The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets