Open AccessResponding effectively to adult mental health patient feedback in an online environment: A coproduced framework
Author(s) -
Baines Rebecca,
Donovan John,
Regan de Bere Sam,
Archer Julian,
Jones Ray
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12682
Subject(s) - coproduction , thematic analysis , quality (philosophy) , psychology , mental health , conceptual framework , perception , health care , best practice , applied psychology , quality management , patient experience , medicine , nursing , medical education , qualitative research , public relations , service (business) , psychiatry , business , marketing , political science , social science , philosophy , epistemology , neuroscience , sociology , law
Background Responding to online patient feedback is considered integral to patient safety and quality improvement. However, guidance on how to respond effectively is limited, with limited attention paid to patient perceptions and reactions. Objectives To identify factors considered potentially helpful in enhancing response quality; coproduce a best‐practice response framework; and quality‐appraise existing responses. Design A four‐stage mixed methodology: (i) systematic search of stories published on Care Opinion about adult mental health services in the South West of England; (ii) collaborative thematic analysis of responses to identify factors potentially helpful in enhancing response quality; (iii) validation of identified factors by a patient‐carer group (n = 12) leading to the coproduction of a best‐practice response framework; and (iv) quality appraisal of existing responses. Results A total of 245 stories were identified, with 183 (74.7%) receiving a response. Twenty‐four (9.8%) had been heard but not yet responded to. 1.6% (n = 4/245) may lead to a change. Nineteen factors were considered influential in response quality. These centred around seven subject areas: (i) introductions; (ii) explanations; (iii) speed of response; (iv) thanks and apologies; (v) response content; (vi) signposting; and (vii) response sign‐off that were developed into a conceptual framework (the Plymouth, Listen, Learn and Respond framework). Quality appraisal of existing responses highlighted areas for further improvement demonstrating the framework's utility. Conclusion This study advances existing understanding by providing previously unavailable guidance. It has clear practical and theoretical implications for those looking to improve health‐care services, patient safety and quality of care. Further validation of the conceptual framework is encouraged.