Organisational strategies and practices to improve care using patient experience data in acute NHS hospital trusts: an ethnographic study

Characteristics of positive feedback provided by UK health service users: content analysis of examples from two databases

BACKGROUND

Most feedback received by health services is positive. Our systematic scoping review mapped all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates healthcare change. Most included papers did not provide specific details on positive feedback characteristics.

OBJECTIVES

Describe positive feedback characteristics by (1) developing heuristics for identifying positive feedback; (2) sharing annotated feedback examples; (3) describing their positive content.

METHODS

200 items were selected from two contrasting databases: (1) https://careopinion.org.uk/; (2) National Health Service (NHS) Friends and Family Test data collected by an NHS trust. Preliminary heuristics and positive feedback categories were developed from a small convenience sample, and iteratively refined.

RESULTS

Categories were identified: positive-only; mixed; narrative; factual; grateful. We propose a typology describing tone (positive-only, mixed), form (factual, narrative) and intent (grateful). Separating positive and negative elements in mixed feedback was sometimes impossible due to ambiguity. Narrative feedback often described the cumulative impact of interactions with healthcare providers, healthcare professionals, influential individuals and community organisations. Grateful feedback was targeted at individual staff or entire units, but the target was sometimes ambiguous.

CONCLUSION

People commissioning feedback collection systems should consider mechanisms to maximise utility by limiting ambiguity. Since being enabled to provide narrative feedback can allow contributors to make contextualised statements about what worked for them and why, then there may be trade-offs to negotiate between limiting ambiguity, and encouraging rich narratives. Groups tasked with using feedback should plan the human resources needed for careful inspection, and consider providing narrative analysis training.

A glimpse behind the organisational curtain: A dramaturgical analysis exploring the ways healthcare staff engage with online patient feedback 'front' and 'backstage' at three hospital Trusts in England

Healthcare staff are encouraged to use feedback from their patients to inform service and quality improvement. Receiving patient feedback via online channels is a relatively new phenomenon that has rarely been conceptualised. Further, the implications of a wide, varied and unknown(able) audience being able to view and interact with online patient feedback are yet to be understood. We applied a theoretical lens of dramaturgy to a large ethnographic dataset, collected across three NHS Trusts during 2019/2020. We found that organisations demonstrated varying levels of 'preparedness to perform' online, from invisibility through to engaging in public conversation with patients within a wider mission for transparency. Restrictive 'cast lists' of staff able to respond to patients was the hallmark of one organisation, whereas another devolved responding responsibility amongst a wide array of multidisciplinary staff. The visibility of patient-staff interactions had the potential to be culturally disruptive, dichotomously invoking either apprehensions of reputational threat or providing windows of opportunity. We surmise that a transparent and conversational feedback response frontstage aligns with the ability to better prioritise backstage improvement. Legitimising the autonomous frontstage activity of diverse staff groups may help shift organisational culture, and gradually ripple outwards a shared responsibility for transparent improvement.

The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities: Scoping review of the literature

Objective

To characterize the literature, reported enablers, and gaps on the use of patient experience feedback for person-centered rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities.

Design

Scoping Review.

Data sources

Scientific databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Rehabdata, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest), website searches (e.g. Beryl Institute), snowballing, and key-informant recommendations.

Methods

Two independent reviewers performed title and abstract screenings and full-text reviews. Eligibility focused on English-language, peer-reviewed (all time) and gray literature (last five years) that used patient experience feedback in rehabilitation improvement activities. The aims, settings, methods, findings, implications, and reported limitations were extracted, followed by content analyses identifying reported enablers and gaps.

Results

Among the 901 unique references and 52 full texts reviewed, ten were included: four used patient experience surveys for improving patient experiences; six used codesign methodologies to engage patient feedback in service improvement activities. Implementation enablers included securing managerial support, having a structured methodology and facilitator, using efficient processes, engaging staff experiences, and using appreciative inquiry. Reported study gaps included limited follow-up, low sample sizes, analytical limitations, lack of reported limitations, or narrow range of perspectives (e.g. not from people with severe impairments).

Conclusion

Few examples of the use of patient experience feedback in quality improvement or codesign activities were found in the rehabilitation literature. Patient experience improvement activities relied exclusively on retrospective survey data, which were not combined with often more actionable forms (e.g. qualitative, real time) of patient experience feedback. Further research might consider design of activities that collect and use patient experience feedback for rehabilitation service improvements.

Patient experience data as enacted: Sociomaterial perspectives and 'singular-multiples' in health care quality improvement research

Over the last three decades, sociomaterial approaches to the study of health care practices have made an important contribution to the sociology of health care. Significant attention has been paid to the role of technology and artefacts in health care and the operation of actor-networks but less space has been given to questions of ontological multiplicity in health care practices. In this paper, we draw upon our study of patient experience data in five acute hospitals in England to illustrate how treating patient experience data as 'singular-multiples' can enable useful insights into patient experience data work in health care organisations. Our data was generated during 12 months of fieldwork at five participating hospitals and included organisational documents, field notes, informal and formal interviews with frontline and managerial staff and patient representatives at the study sites. We use the examples of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES) in England to consider the multiple nature of data as it is enacted in practice and the work data does when coordinated as an entity in the singular. We argue that, and discuss how, the sociomaterial insights we discuss here are relevant to health care quality and improvement research and practice.

What does the patient have to say? Valuing the patient experience to improve the patient journey

Background

Patient-reported data—satisfaction, preferences, outcomes and experience—are increasingly studied to provide excellent patient-centred care. In particular, healthcare professionals need to understand whether and how patient experience data can more pertinently inform the design of service delivery from a patient-centred perspective when compared with other indicators. This study aims to explore whether timely patient-reported data could capture relevant issues to improve the hospital patient journey.

Methods

Between January and February 2019, a longitudinal survey was conducted in the orthopaedics department of a 250-bed Italian university hospital with patients admitted for surgery; the aim was to analyse the patient journey from the first outpatient visit to discharge. The same patients completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire, which was created to collect timely preference, experience and main outcomes data, and the hospital patient satisfaction questionnaire. The first was completed at the time of admission to the hospital and at the end of hospitalisation, and the second questionnaire was completed at the end of hospitalisation.

Results

A total of 254 patients completed the three questionnaires. The results show the specific value of patient-reported data. Greater or less negative satisfaction may not reveal pathology-related needs, but patient experience data can detect important areas of improvement along the hospital journey. As clinical conditions and the context of care change rapidly within a single hospital stay for surgery, collecting data at two different moments of the patient journey enables researchers to capture areas of potential improvement in the patient journey that are linked to the context, clinical conditions and emotions experienced by the patient.

Conclusion

By contributing to the literature on how patient-reported data could be collected and used in hospital quality improvement, this study opens the debate about the use of real-time focused data. Further studies should explore how to use patient-reported data effectively (including what the patient reports are working well) and how to improve hospital processes by profiling patients’ needs and defining the appropriate methodologies to capture the experiences of vulnerable patients. These topics may offer new frontiers of research to achieve a patient-centred healthcare system.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06341-3.

Factors influencing the delivery of cancer pathways: a summary of the literature

PURPOSE

The study aims to summarise the literature on cancer care pathways at the diagnostic and treatment phases. The objectives are to find factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways; to highlight any interrelating factors; to find gaps in the literature concerning areas of research; to summarise the strategies and recommendations implemented in the studies.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The study used a qualitative approach and developed a causal loop diagram to summarise the current literature on cancer care pathways, from screening and diagnosis to treatment. A total of 46 papers was finally included in the analysis, which highlights the recurring themes in the literature.

FINDINGS

The study highlights the myriad areas of research applied to cancer care pathways. Factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways were classified into different albeit interrelated themes. These include access barriers to care, hospital emergency admissions, fast track diagnostics, delay in diagnosis, waiting time to treatment and strategies to increase system efficiency.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

As far as the authors know, this is the first study to present a visual representation of the complex relationship between factors influencing the delivery of cancer care pathways.

Understanding how front-line staff use patient experience data for service improvement: an exploratory case study evaluation

Background and aim

The NHS collects a large number of data on patient experience, but there are concerns that it does not use this information to improve care. This study explored whether or not and how front-line staff use patient experience data for service improvement.

Methods

Phase 1 – secondary analysis of existing national survey data, and a new survey of NHS trust patient experience leads. Phase 2 – case studies in six medical wards using ethnographic observations and interviews. A baseline and a follow-up patient experience survey were conducted on each ward, supplemented by in-depth interviews. Following an initial learning community to discuss approaches to learning from and improving patient experience, teams developed and implemented their own interventions. Emerging findings from the ethnographic research were shared formatively. Phase 3 – dissemination, including an online guide for NHS staff.

Key findings

Phase 1 – an analysis of staff and inpatient survey results for all 153 acute trusts in England was undertaken, and 57 completed surveys were obtained from patient experience leads. The most commonly cited barrier to using patient experience data was a lack of staff time to examine the data (75%), followed by cost (35%), lack of staff interest/support (21%) and too many data (21%). Trusts were grouped in a matrix of high, medium and low performance across several indices to inform case study selection. Phase 2 – in every site, staff undertook quality improvement projects using a range of data sources. The number and scale of these varied, as did the extent to which they drew directly on patient experience data, and the extent of involvement of patients. Before-and-after surveys of patient experience showed little statistically significant change. Making sense of patient experience ‘data’ Staff were engaged in a process of sense-making from a range of formal and informal sources of intelligence. Survey data remain the most commonly recognised and used form of data. ‘Soft’ intelligence, such as patient stories, informal comments and daily ward experiences of staff, patients and family, also fed into staff’s improvement plans, but they and the wider organisation may not recognise these as ‘data’. Staff may lack confidence in using them for improvement. Staff could not always point to a specific source of patient experience ‘data’ that led to a particular project, and sometimes reported acting on what they felt they already knew needed changing. Staff experience as a route to improving patient experience Some sites focused on staff motivation and experience on the assumption that this would improve patient experience through indirect cultural and attitudinal change, and by making staff feel empowered and supported. Staff participants identified several potential interlinked mechanisms: (1) motivated staff provide better care, (2) staff who feel taken seriously are more likely to be motivated, (3) involvement in quality improvement is itself motivating and (4) improving patient experience can directly improve staff experience. ‘Team-based capital’ in NHS settings We propose ‘team-based capital’ in NHS settings as a key mechanism between the contexts in our case studies and observed outcomes. ‘Capital’ is the extent to which staff command varied practical, organisational and social resources that enable them to set agendas, drive process and implement change. These include not just material or economic resources, but also status, time, space, relational networks and influence. Teams involving a range of clinical and non-clinical staff from multiple disciplines and levels of seniority could assemble a greater range of capital; progress was generally greater when the team included individuals from the patient experience office. Phase 3 – an online guide for NHS staff was produced in collaboration with The Point of Care Foundation.

Limitations

This was an ethnographic study of how and why NHS front-line staff do or do not use patient experience data for quality improvement. It was not designed to demonstrate whether particular types of patient experience data or quality improvement approaches are more effective than others.

Future research

Developing and testing interventions focused specifically on staff but with patient experience as the outcome, with a health economics component. Studies focusing on the effect of team composition and diversity on the impact and scope of patient-centred quality improvement. Research into using unstructured feedback and soft intelligence.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.