Patient feedback questionnaires to enhance consultation skills of healthcare professionals: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient feedback questionnaires that assess the development of consultation skills (CSs) of practitioners.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search using seven databases from inception to January 2017 to identify self-completed patient feedback questionnaires assessing and enhancing the development of CSs of individual practitioners. Results were checked for eligibility by three authors, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. Reference lists of relevant studies and Open Grey were searched for additional studies.

RESULTS

Of 16,312 studies retrieved, sixteen were included, describing twelve patient feedback questionnaires that were mostly designed for physicians in primary care settings. Most questionnaires had limited data regarding their psychometric properties, except for the Doctor Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (DISQ). Most studies conducted follow-up, capturing positive views of practitioners regarding the process (n = 14). Feedback was repeated by only three studies, demonstrating different levels of improvement in practitioners' performance.

CONCLUSION

Identified questionnaires were mainly focused on physicians, however, to support using patient feedback, questionnaires need to be validated with other practitioners.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Several patient feedback questionnaires are available, showing potential for supporting practitioners' development. Valid questionnaires should be used with appropriate practitioners in developing more evidence for the impact they may have on actual consultations.

Cultural adaptation of Quality Of Care Through The Patient's Eyes -QUOTE-HIV

ABSTRACT Objective: to translate and adapt Quality of Care Through the Patient's Eyes - HIV (QUOTE-HIV) for the Brazilian population living with HIV/AIDS. Method: a methodological study, which followed the stages of translation, synthesis, back-translation, evaluation by the committee of experts and pre-test for cultural adaptation of the instrument. Results: the process of translation and cultural adaptation was considered adequate. Evaluation by the expert committee resulted in semantic, structural and grammatical adequacy of the evaluated items. 30 subjects considered the instrument to be easy to understand and suggested minor adjustments in some items. Conclusion: the Brazilian version of QUOTE-HIV has been adapted and validated in relation to its content. However, this is a study that precedes the process of evaluating the psychometric properties of the instrument, the results of which will be presented in a later publication.

Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making: Results from three clinical settings in the United States

Introduction

CollaboRATE is a brief patient survey focused on shared decision making. This paper aims to (i) provide insight on facilitators and challenges to implementing a real‐time patient survey and (ii) evaluate CollaboRATE scores and response rates across multiple clinical settings with varied patient populations.

Method

All adult patients at three United States primary care practices were eligible to complete CollaboRATE post‐visit. To inform key learnings, we aggregated all mentions of unanticipated decisions, problems and administration errors from field notes and email communications. Mixed‐effects logistic regression evaluated the impact of site, clinician, patient age and patient gender on the CollaboRATE score.

Results

While CollaboRATE score increased only slightly with increasing patient age (OR 1.018, 95% CI 1.014‐1.021), female patient gender was associated with significantly higher CollaboRATE scores (OR 1.224, 95% CI 1.073‐1.397). Clinician also predicts CollaboRATE score (random effect variance 0.146). Site‐specific factors such as clinical workflow and checkout procedures play a key role in successful in‐clinic implementation and are significantly related to CollaboRATE scores, with Site 3 scoring significantly higher than Site 1 (OR 1.759, 95% CI 1.216 to 2.545) or Site 2 (z=−2.71, 95% CI −1.114 to −0.178).

Discussion

This study demonstrates that CollaboRATE can be used in diverse primary care settings. A clinic's workflow plays a crucial role in implementation. Patient experience measurement risks becoming a burden to both patients and administrators. Episodic use of short measurement tools could reduce this burden.

Structure and quality of outpatient care for people living with an HIV infection

Policy-makers and clinicians are faced with a gap of evidence to guide policy on standards for HIV outpatient care. Ongoing debates include which settings of care improve health outcomes, and how many HIV-infected patients a health-care provider should treat to gain and maintain expertise. In this article, we evaluate the studies that link health-care facility and care provider characteristics (i.e., structural factors) to health outcomes in HIV-infected patients. We searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, PUBMED, and EMBASE from inception until 1 January 2015. We included a total of 28 observational studies that were conducted after the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy in 1996. Three aspects of the available research linking the structure to quality of HIV outpatient care were evaluated: (1) assessed structural characteristics (i.e., health-care facility and care provider characteristics); (2) measures of quality of HIV outpatient care; and (3) reported associations between structural characteristics and quality of care. Rather than scarcity of data, it is the diversity in methodology in the identified studies and the inconsistency of their results that led us to the conclusion that the scientific evidence is too weak to guide policy in HIV outpatient care. We provide recommendations on how to address this heterogeneity in future studies and offer specific suggestions for further reading that could be of interest for clinicians and researchers.