Cargando…

Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings

OBJECTIVES: Explore how patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are collected, communicated and used to inform quality improvement (QI) across healthcare settings. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Various primary and secondary care settings, including general practice, and acute and chronic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gleeson, Helen, Calderon, Ana, Swami, Viren, Deighton, Jessica, Wolpert, Miranda, Edbrooke-Childs, Julian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5013495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27531733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011907
_version_ 1782452177526063104
author Gleeson, Helen
Calderon, Ana
Swami, Viren
Deighton, Jessica
Wolpert, Miranda
Edbrooke-Childs, Julian
author_facet Gleeson, Helen
Calderon, Ana
Swami, Viren
Deighton, Jessica
Wolpert, Miranda
Edbrooke-Childs, Julian
author_sort Gleeson, Helen
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Explore how patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are collected, communicated and used to inform quality improvement (QI) across healthcare settings. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Various primary and secondary care settings, including general practice, and acute and chronic care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A full range of patient populations from (children through to the elderly) and staff (from healthcare practitioners to senior managers). METHODS: Scientific databases were searched (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Libraries) as was grey literature. Qualitative and quantitative studies describing collection of PREM data and subsequent QI actions in any healthcare setting were included. Risk of bias was assessed using established criteria. Of 5312 initial hits, 32 full texts were screened, and 11 were included. RESULTS: Patient experience data were most commonly collected through surveys and used to identify small areas of incremental change to services that do not require a change to clinician behaviour (eg, changes to admission processes and producing educational materials). While staff in most studies reported having made effective improvements, authors struggled to identify what those changes were or the impact they had. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest there is no single best way to collect or use PREM data for QI, but they do suggest some key points to consider when planning such an approach. For instance, formal training is recommended, as a lack of expertise in QI and confidence in interpreting patient experience data effectively may continue to be a barrier to a successful shift towards a more patient-centred healthcare service. In the context of QI, more attention is required on how patient experience data will be used to inform changes to practice and, in turn, measure any impact these changes may have on patient experience.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5013495
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50134952016-09-12 Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings Gleeson, Helen Calderon, Ana Swami, Viren Deighton, Jessica Wolpert, Miranda Edbrooke-Childs, Julian BMJ Open Patient-Centred Medicine OBJECTIVES: Explore how patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are collected, communicated and used to inform quality improvement (QI) across healthcare settings. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Various primary and secondary care settings, including general practice, and acute and chronic care hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: A full range of patient populations from (children through to the elderly) and staff (from healthcare practitioners to senior managers). METHODS: Scientific databases were searched (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Libraries) as was grey literature. Qualitative and quantitative studies describing collection of PREM data and subsequent QI actions in any healthcare setting were included. Risk of bias was assessed using established criteria. Of 5312 initial hits, 32 full texts were screened, and 11 were included. RESULTS: Patient experience data were most commonly collected through surveys and used to identify small areas of incremental change to services that do not require a change to clinician behaviour (eg, changes to admission processes and producing educational materials). While staff in most studies reported having made effective improvements, authors struggled to identify what those changes were or the impact they had. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest there is no single best way to collect or use PREM data for QI, but they do suggest some key points to consider when planning such an approach. For instance, formal training is recommended, as a lack of expertise in QI and confidence in interpreting patient experience data effectively may continue to be a barrier to a successful shift towards a more patient-centred healthcare service. In the context of QI, more attention is required on how patient experience data will be used to inform changes to practice and, in turn, measure any impact these changes may have on patient experience. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-08-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5013495/ /pubmed/27531733 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011907 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Patient-Centred Medicine
Gleeson, Helen
Calderon, Ana
Swami, Viren
Deighton, Jessica
Wolpert, Miranda
Edbrooke-Childs, Julian
Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
title Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
title_full Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
title_fullStr Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
title_short Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
title_sort systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
topic Patient-Centred Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5013495/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27531733
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011907
work_keys_str_mv AT gleesonhelen systematicreviewofapproachestousingpatientexperiencedataforqualityimprovementinhealthcaresettings
AT calderonana systematicreviewofapproachestousingpatientexperiencedataforqualityimprovementinhealthcaresettings
AT swamiviren systematicreviewofapproachestousingpatientexperiencedataforqualityimprovementinhealthcaresettings
AT deightonjessica systematicreviewofapproachestousingpatientexperiencedataforqualityimprovementinhealthcaresettings
AT wolpertmiranda systematicreviewofapproachestousingpatientexperiencedataforqualityimprovementinhealthcaresettings
AT edbrookechildsjulian systematicreviewofapproachestousingpatientexperiencedataforqualityimprovementinhealthcaresettings