Open AccessWhat's the problem with patient experience feedback? A macro and micro understanding, based on findings from a three‐site UK qualitative study
Author(s) -
Sheard Laura,
Peacock Rosemary,
Marsh Claire,
Lawton Rebecca
Publication year - 2019
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.12829
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , macro , task (project management) , focus group , qualitative research , health care , patient experience , action (physics) , psychology , resource (disambiguation) , knowledge management , nursing , public relations , medicine , computer science , marketing , business , sociology , management , political science , paleontology , social science , computer network , physics , quantum mechanics , law , economics , biology , programming language
Abstract Context Collecting feedback from patients about their experiences of health care is an important activity. However, improvement based on this feedback rarely materializes. In this study, we focus on answering the question—“what is impeding the use of patient experience feedback?” Methods We conducted a qualitative study in 2016 across three NHS hospital Trusts in the North of England. Focus groups were undertaken with ward‐based staff, and hospital managers were interviewed in‐depth (50 participants). We conducted a conceptual‐level analysis. Findings On a macro level, we found that the intense focus on the collection of patient experience feedback has developed into its own self‐perpetuating industry with a significant allocation of resource, effort and time being expended on this task. This is often at the expense of pan‐organizational learning or improvements being made. On a micro level, ward staff struggled to interact with feedback due to its complexity with questions raised about the value, validity and timeliness of data sources. Conclusions Macro and micro prohibiting factors come together in a perfect storm which provides a substantial impediment to improvements being made. Recommendations for policy change are put forward alongside recognition that high‐level organizational culture/systems are currently too sluggish to allow fruitful learning and action to occur from the feedback that patients give.