Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop

Systematic review on the frequency and quality of reporting patient and public involvement in patient safety research

BACKGROUND

In recent years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research has significantly increased; however, the reporting of PPI remains poor. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2) was developed to enhance the quality and consistency of PPI reporting. The objective of this systematic review is to identify the frequency and quality of PPI reporting in patient safety (PS) research using the GRIPP2 checklist.

METHODS

Searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from 2018 to December, 2023. Studies on PPI in PS research were included. We included empirical qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods, and case studies. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English were included. The quality of PPI reporting was assessed using the short form of the (GRIPP2-SF) checklist.

RESULTS

A total of 8561 studies were retrieved from database searches, updates, and reference checks, of which 82 met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Major PS topics were related to medication safety, general PS, and fall prevention. Patient representatives, advocates, patient advisory groups, patients, service users, and health consumers were the most involved. The main involvement across the studies was in commenting on or developing research materials. Only 6.1% (n = 5) of the studies reported PPI as per the GRIPP2 checklist. Regarding the quality of reporting following the GRIPP2-SF criteria, our findings show sub-optimal reporting mainly due to failures in: critically reflecting on PPI in the study; reporting the aim of PPI in the study; and reporting the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows a low frequency of PPI reporting in PS research using the GRIPP2 checklist. Furthermore, it reveals a sub-optimal quality in PPI reporting following GRIPP2-SF items. Researchers, funders, publishers, and journals need to promote consistent and transparent PPI reporting following internationally developed reporting guidelines such as the GRIPP2. Evidence-based guidelines for reporting PPI should be encouraged and supported as it helps future researchers to plan and report PPI more effectively.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023450715).

Evaluation of Experiences and Attitudes of Patients Towards Patient Portal-Enabled Access to Their Health Information or Medical Records: A Qualitative Grounded Theory Study

The demand for patient-centred care and patient engagement in their healthcare has driven patient portal introduction. The widespread adoption and use of patient portals, however, has been a rather slow process in the United Kingdom. Hence, a limited number of studies have explored patient perceptions and experiences of general portal use, which forms a foundation for successful implementation of a portal. This study, therefore, focuses on the experiences and attitudes of patients regarding use of patient portals and access to their health information. It further explores various factors perceived by patients that may influence portal use and uptake. The overall findings from this study highlight positive patient perceptions of portal use. Nevertheless, it demonstrates various areas of improvement essential to ensure future success of portal implementation and acceptance.

Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop

Background

Missed test‐results and failure to follow‐up test‐results are major patient safety concerns. Strategies to improve test‐results management have predominantly focused on clinician‐based interventions, with patients principally involved in studies of test‐result communication preferences, the impact of patient portals or experiences with reporting processes in primary care.

Objective

To identify consumer perspectives and experiences of the challenges they have faced with test‐results management, through consumer participation in qualitative data analysis.

Design and participants

Volunteers (n = 10) were recruited to participate in a health consumer reference group workshop on test‐results management. Prior to the workshop, consumers selected topics for discussion using a preference poll. During the workshop, consumers participated in qualitative data analysis of de‐identified excerpts of previously collected interview data discussing hospital test‐results management. Researchers (n = 5) guided consumers through the analytical process and discussion of themes. Discussions were audio‐recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis.

Results

Consumer‐selected topics for discussion were ‘Transitions of Care’ and ‘Access’. Consumer data analysis prompted broader discussion including lived experiences. Following the workshop, a second level of content analysis pinpointed issues with implications for patient safety highlighting that consumers were astutely aware of macrolevel ‘Systems Factors’ relating to ‘Emergency Departments’ and the health system, as well as microlevel ‘Patient Factors’ (eg patient preferences and circumstances) which impact a patient's understanding during the ‘Communication’ (clinician to patient/between clinicians) of test‐results ‘Information’ (or lack thereof).

Conclusions

Consumers identified the challenges patients experience with test‐results management, and our findings highlight areas for potential improvement in patient safety.

Patient or public contribution

Ten health consumer volunteers actively participated in the test‐results management data analysis workshop conducted in this study. Two health consumers also volunteered to read and comment on the draft manuscript.