What’s going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process
Author:
Liu Stephen K.12, Bourgeois Fabienne34, Dong Joe5, Harcourt Kendall5, Lowe Elizabeth6, Salmi Liz5, Thomas Eric J.78, Riblet Natalie12, Bell Sigall K.45
Affiliation:
1. White River Junction VA Medical Center , White River Junction , VT , USA 2. Department of Medicine , Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth , Hanover , NH , USA 3. Department of Pediatrics , Boston Children’s Hospital , Boston , MA , USA 4. Department of Medicine , Harvard Medical School , Boston , MA , USA 5. Department of Medicine , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , Boston , MA , USA 6. Patient and Family Advisory Council, Department of Social Work , Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center , Boston , MA , USA 7. Department of Medicine , University of Texas McGovern Medical School , Houston , TX , USA 8. Center for Healthcare Quality and Safety , Memorial Hermann Texas Medical Center , Houston , TX , USA
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on close collaboration between patients/families and clinicians. Just as patients have unique insights into diagnostic breakdowns, positive patient feedback may also generate broader perspectives on what constitutes a “good” diagnostic process (DxP).
Methods
We evaluated patient/family feedback on “what’s going well” as part of an online pre-visit survey designed to engage patients/families in the DxP. Patients/families living with chronic conditions with visits in three urban pediatric subspecialty clinics (site 1) and one rural adult primary care clinic (site 2) were invited to complete the survey between December 2020 and March 2022. We adapted the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to conduct a qualitative analysis on a subset of patient/family responses with ≥20 words.
Results
In total, 7,075 surveys were completed before 18,129 visits (39 %) at site 1, and 460 surveys were completed prior to 706 (65 %) visits at site 2. Of all participants, 1,578 volunteered positive feedback, ranging from 1–79 words. Qualitative analysis of 272 comments with ≥20 words described: Relationships (60 %), Clinical Care (36 %), and Environment (4 %). Compared to primary care, subspecialty comments showed the same overall rankings. Within Relationships, patients/families most commonly noted: thorough and competent attention (46 %), clear communication and listening (41 %) and emotional support and human connection (39 %). Within Clinical Care, patients highlighted: timeliness (31 %), effective clinical management (30 %), and coordination of care (25 %).
Conclusions
Patients/families valued relationships with clinicians above all else in the DxP, emphasizing the importance of supporting clinicians to nurture effective relationships and relationship-centered care in the DxP.
Funder
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Biochemistry (medical),Clinical Biochemistry,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference43 articles.
1. Carayon, P, Wooldridge, A, Hoonakker, P, Hundt, AS, Kelly, MM. SEIPS 3.0: human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety. Appl Ergon 2020;84:103033, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103033. 2. Amalberti, R, Vincent, C. Managing risk in hazardous conditions: improvisation is not enough. BMJ Qual Saf 2020;29:60–3, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009443. 3. Bell, SK, Bourgeois, F, DesRoches, CM, Dong, J, Harcourt, K, Liu, SK, et al.. Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care. BMJ Qual Saf 2022;31:526–40, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013672. 4. Bell, SK, Bourgeois, F, Dong, J, Gillespie, A, Ngo, LH, Reader, TW, et al.. Patient identification of diagnostic safety blindspots and participation in “Good Catches” through shared visit notes. Milbank Q 2022;100:1121–65, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12593. 5. Batalden, M, Batalden, P, Margolis, P, Seid, M, Armstrong, G, Opipari-Arrigan, L, et al.. Coproduction of healthcare service. BMJ Qual Saf 2016;25:509–17, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004315.
|
|