Open AccessPatient experience feedback in UK hospitals: What types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?
Author(s) -
Marsh Claire,
Peacock Rosemary,
Sheard Laura,
Hughes Lesley,
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.12885
Subject(s) - identification (biology) , quality (philosophy) , accountability , medicine , quality management , process (computing) , qualitative research , qualitative property , data collection , protocol (science) , psychology , computer science , medical education , alternative medicine , operations management , social science , philosophy , mathematics , law , pathology , sociology , biology , operating system , epistemology , machine learning , political science , management system , statistics , botany , economics
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.