Using patient experience data to develop a patient experience toolkit to improve hospital care: a mixed-methods study

Project report


Sheard, L., Marsh, C., Mills, T., Peacock, R., Langley, J., Partridge, R., Gwilt, I. and Lawton, R. (2019). Using patient experience data to develop a patient experience toolkit to improve hospital care: a mixed-methods study. NIHR, Health Services and Delivery Research . https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07360
AuthorsSheard, L., Marsh, C., Mills, T., Peacock, R., Langley, J., Partridge, R., Gwilt, I. and Lawton, R.
TypeProject report
Abstract

Background
Patients are increasingly being asked to provide feedback about their experience of health-care services. Within the NHS, a significant level of resource is now allocated to the collection of this feedback. However, it is not well understood whether or not, or how, health-care staff are able to use these data to make improvements to future care delivery.

Objective
To understand and enhance how hospital staff learn from and act on patient experience (PE) feedback in order to co-design, test, refine and evaluate a Patient Experience Toolkit (PET).

Design
A predominantly qualitative study with four interlinking work packages.

Setting
Three NHS trusts in the north of England, focusing on six ward-based clinical teams (two at each trust).

Methods
A scoping review and qualitative exploratory study were conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. The findings of this work fed into a participatory co-design process with ward staff and patient representatives, which led to the production of the PET. This was primarily based on activities undertaken in three workshops (over the winter of 2016/17). Then, the facilitated use of the PET took place across the six wards over a 12-month period (February 2017 to February 2018). This involved testing and refinement through an action research (AR) methodology. A large, mixed-methods, independent process evaluation was conducted over the same 12-month period.

Findings
The testing and refinement of the PET during the AR phase, with the mixed-methods evaluation running alongside it, produced noteworthy findings. The idea that current PE data can be effectively triangulated for the purpose of improvement is largely a fallacy. Rather, additional but more relational feedback had to be collected by patient representatives, an unanticipated element of the study, to provide health-care staff with data that they could work with more easily. Multidisciplinary involvement in PE initiatives is difficult to establish unless teams already work in this way. Regardless, there is merit in involving different levels of the nursing hierarchy. Consideration of patient feedback by health-care staff can be an emotive process that may be difficult initially and that needs dedicated time and sensitive management. The six ward teams engaged variably with the AR process over a 12-month period. Some teams implemented far-reaching plans, whereas other teams focused on time-minimising ‘quick wins’. The evaluation found that facilitation of the toolkit was central to its implementation. The most important factors here were the development of relationships between people and the facilitator’s ability to navigate organisational complexity.

Limitations
The settings in which the PET was tested were extremely diverse, so the influence of variable context limits hard conclusions about its success.

Conclusions
The current manner in which PE feedback is collected and used is generally not fit for the purpose of enabling health-care staff to make meaningful local improvements. The PET was co-designed with health-care staff and patient representatives but it requires skilled facilitation to achieve successful outcomes.

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

Year2019
PublisherNIHR, Health Services and Delivery Research
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07360
Web address (URL)https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/hsdr07360/#/abstract
File
License
File Access Level
Open
Publication dates
Print01 Oct 2019
Publication process dates
Deposited31 Aug 2022
Permalink -

https://openresearch.lsbu.ac.uk/item/91v7x

Download files


File
3030804.pdf
License: CC BY 4.0
File access level: Open

  • 3
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 0
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Development of a ‘real-world’ logic model through testing the feasibility of a complex healthcare intervention: the challenge of reconciling scalability and context-sensitivity
Mills, T., Shannon, R., O'Hara, J., Lawton, R. and Sheard, L. Development of a ‘real-world’ logic model through testing the feasibility of a complex healthcare intervention: the challenge of reconciling scalability and context-sensitivity. Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563890211068869
Early implementation of the structured medication review in England: a qualitative study.
Madden, M., Mills, T., Atkin, K., Stewart, D. and McCambridge, J. (2022). Early implementation of the structured medication review in England: a qualitative study. The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners. https://doi.org/BJGP.2022.0014
The Association Between Health Care Staff Engagement and Patient Safety Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Janes, G., Mills, T., Budworth, L., Johnson, J. and Lawton, R. (2021). The Association Between Health Care Staff Engagement and Patient Safety Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Patient Safety. 17 (3), pp. 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000807
Advancing Complexity Theory in Health Services Research: The Logic of Logic Models
Mills, T., Lawton, R. and Sheard, L. (2019). Advancing Complexity Theory in Health Services Research: The Logic of Logic Models. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 19 (55). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0701-4