The use of patient experience survey data by out-of-hours primary care services: a qualitative interview study

How to implement patient experience surveys and use their findings for service improvement: a qualitative expert consultation study in Australian general practice

Objective

To identify barriers (patient, provider, practice and system levels) to consider when implementing patient experience surveys in Australian general practice and enablers of their systematic use to inform service improvement in clinical practice as well as the broader health system.

Methods and analysis

An expert consultation and qualitative content analysis of cross-sectional, open-text survey data. Data were collected from key international and Australian experts in the areas of measurement and quality improvement in general practice.

Results

Responses from 20 participants from six countries were included in the study. Participants discussed the importance of ensuring value and relevance of surveys to stakeholders. Lack of resources, IT infrastructure, capacity building and sustained funding were identified as barriers to implementing surveys. Participants discussed the importance of clearly defining and communicating the purpose of surveys and agreed on the value of using patient experience to inform reflective, team-based learning at the practice level. Opinions differed on the use of patient experience data at the system level, with some questioning its utility or fairness for external performance reporting. Others recommended the aggregation and reporting of these data under certain conditions, including for the purpose of triangulation with other quality and outcome data. The study identified an evidence gap in the assessment and interpretation of patient experience data at the practice and system levels, including the analysis and contextualisation of survey findings at the system level.

Conclusion

Patient experience surveys have potential for guiding practice level quality improvement, but many barriers to their implementation remain. There is need for greater research and policy efforts to understand how this information can be used at the system level for improving Australian general practice.

The catalytic role of Mystery Patient tools in shaping patient experience: A method to facilitate value co-creation using action research

Improving patients’ experience in hospitals necessitates the improvement of service quality. Using mystery patients as a tool for assessing and improving patients’ experience is praised for its comprehensiveness. However, such programs are costly, difficult to design and may cause unintended negative consequences if poorly implemented. Following an Action Research theoretical framework, the aim of this study is to utilize the Mystery Patient (MP) for engaging the patient in co-creating valuable non-clinical services and producing guidance about future managerial interventions. This was operationalized at the Outpatient Clinics at a large Academic Hospital in the Middle East region whereby 18 Mystery Patients conducted 66 visits to clinics and filled out 159 questionnaires. The results indicated higher scores on hard criteria or skills (technical), such as personal image and professionalism, and lower scores on soft criteria (interpersonal), including “compassion” and “courtesy”. The data also demonstrated how the MP tool could provide targeted information that can point to future interventions at any one of the patient experience core pillars, namely: process, setting, and employees. This paves the way for another cycle of spiral learning, and consequently, a continuous process of organizational learning and development around service provision. The MP tool can play the role of the catalyst that accelerates the value co-creation process of patient experience by directing management to necessary interventions at the three pillars of patient experience: employees, processes, and setting.

Job satisfaction and stressors for working in out-of-hours care - a pilot study with general practitioners in a rural area of Germany

BACKGROUND

Challenging work environment, high workload, and increasing physician shortages characterize current rural general practice in Germany and in most European Countries. These factors extend into Out-Of-Hours Care (OOHC). However, little research about potential stressors for general practitioners (GPs) in OOHC settings is available. This pilot study aimed to evaluate workload, different elements of job satisfaction and stressors for GPs in OOHC and to analyze whether these aspects are associated with overall job satisfaction.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey with a sample of 320 GPs who are working in OOHC was used to measure workload in OOHC, job satisfaction (using the Warr-Cook-Wall scale) and stressors with the effort-reward imbalance questionnaire. In order to assess associations between workload, job satisfaction and stressors at work we performed descriptive analyses as well as multivariable regression analyses.

RESULTS

The response rate was 40.9%. Over 80% agreed that OOHC was perceived as a stressor and 79% agreed that less OOHC improved job satisfaction. Only 42% of our sample were satisfied with their overall job satisfaction. The regression analysis showed that the modification of current OOHC organization was significantly associated with overall job satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that OOHC in the current form is a relevant stressor in daily work of rural GPs in Germany and one of the reasons for a decreasing overall job satisfaction. Strategic changes such as the implementation of structural reforms e.g. reducing frequency of OOHC duties for each GP and improving continuing professional development options related to OOHC are needed to address current workload challenges experienced by GPs providing OOHC in Germany.

Out of hours care in Germany - High utilization by adult patients with minor ailments?

BACKGROUND

Family practitioners (FPs) who work in Out-Of-Hours Care (OOHC) - especially in rural areas - complain about high workload related to low urgency and potentially unnecessary patient presentations with minor ailments. The aim of this study was to describe Reasons for Encounter (RFEs) in primary OOHC taken into account the doctor's perspective in the context of high workload without knowing patients' motives for visiting an OOHC-centre.

METHODS

Within this descriptive study, OOHC data from 2012 were evaluated from a German statutory health insurance company in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg. 1.53 Million of the 10.5 Million inhabitants of Baden-Wuerttemberg were covered. The frequency of the ICD-10 diagnoses was determined at the three- and four-digit-level. The rate of hospitalizations was used to estimate the severity of the evaluated cases.

RESULTS

Taken as a whole, 163,711 reasons for encounter with 1,174 ICD-10 single diagnoses were documented, of these 62.2% were on weekends. Less than 5.0% of the examined patients were hospitalized. Low back pain-dorsalgia (M54) was the most common diagnosis in OOHC, with 10,843 cases. Injuries were found twelve times in the list of the 30 most frequent diagnoses. The most frequent infectious disease was acute upper respiratory infection of multiple and unspecified sites (J06). By analysing the ICD codes to four-digits and looking at the rate of hospitalizations, it can be assumed that many RFEs were of less urgency in terms of the prompt need for medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

While it is acknowledged that it can be difficult to make an exact diagnosis in an OOHC setting, after analysing the ICD-10 diagnoses, the majority of reasons for encounter in OOHC were determined to be of low urgency, meaning that patients could have waited until regular consultation hours. In the OOHC setting, it is important to understand RFEs from both the patient perspective and the family practitioner perspective. Additionally, results like these can be used in staff education especially improving triage methods and medical recommendations and in developing specific guidelines for OOHC in Germany. Analysis of routine data, such as in this study, contributes to this understanding and contributes to resolving problems of coding.

Establishing the validity of English GP Patient Survey items evaluating out-of-hours care

Background

A 2014 national audit used the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) to compare service users’ experience of out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) services, yet there is no published evidence on the validity of these GPPS items.

Objectives

Establish the construct and concurrent validity of GPPS items evaluating service users’ experience of GP out-of-hours care.

Methods

Cross-sectional postal survey of service users (n=1396) of six English out-of-hours providers. Participants reported on four GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care (three items modified following cognitive interviews with service users), and 14 evaluative items from the Out-of-hours Patient Questionnaire (OPQ). Construct validity was assessed through correlations between any reliable (Cochran's α>0.7) scales, as suggested by a principal component analysis of the modified GPPS items, with the ‘entry access’ (four items) and ‘consultation satisfaction’ (10 items) OPQ subscales. Concurrent validity was determined by investigating whether each modified GPPS item was associated with thematically related items from the OPQ using linear regressions.

Results

The modified GPPS item-set formed a single scale (α=0.77), which summarised the two-component structure of the OPQ moderately well; explaining 39.7% of variation in the ‘entry access’ scores (r=0.63) and 44.0% of variation in the ‘consultation satisfaction’ scores (r=0.66), demonstrating acceptable construct validity. Concurrent validity was verified as each modified GPPS item was highly associated with a distinct set of related items from the OPQ.

Conclusions

Minor modifications are required for the English GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care to improve comprehension by service users. A modified question set was demonstrated to comprise a valid measure of service users’ overall satisfaction with out-of-hours care received. This demonstrates the potential for the use of as few as four items in benchmarking providers and assisting services in identifying, implementing and assessing quality improvement initiatives.