Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study

Author:

Powell John1ORCID,Atherton Helen2ORCID,Williams Veronika1ORCID,Mazanderani Fadhila3ORCID,Dudhwala Farzana1ORCID,Woolgar Steve45ORCID,Boylan Anne-Marie1ORCID,Fleming Joanna2ORCID,Kirkpatrick Susan1ORCID,Martin Angela1ORCID,van Velthoven Michelle6ORCID,de Iongh Anya7ORCID,Findlay Douglas7ORCID,Locock Louise8ORCID,Ziebland Sue1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

2. Unit of Academic Primary Care, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

3. School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

4. Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

5. Department of Thematic Studies, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

6. Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

7. Lay representative, UK

8. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

Abstract

Background Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting The UK. Methods We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

General Economics, Econometrics and Finance

Reference167 articles.

1. Characterizing the digital health citizen: mixed-methods study deriving a new typology;Powell;J Med Internet Res,2019

2. Darzi A. High Quality Care For All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2008.

3. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2001.

4. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness;Doyle;BMJ Open,2013

5. Relationship between clinical quality and patient experience: analysis of data from the English quality and outcomes framework and the National GP Patient Survey;Llanwarne;Ann Fam Med,2013

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3