Cargando…

Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in real‐time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of RTF in UK general pract...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wright, Christine, Davey, Antoinette, Elmore, Natasha, Carter, Mary, Mounce, Luke, Wilson, Ed, Burt, Jenni, Roland, Martin, Campbell, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433544/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27124589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12469
_version_ 1783236877228179456
author Wright, Christine
Davey, Antoinette
Elmore, Natasha
Carter, Mary
Mounce, Luke
Wilson, Ed
Burt, Jenni
Roland, Martin
Campbell, John
author_facet Wright, Christine
Davey, Antoinette
Elmore, Natasha
Carter, Mary
Mounce, Luke
Wilson, Ed
Burt, Jenni
Roland, Martin
Campbell, John
author_sort Wright, Christine
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in real‐time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of RTF in UK general practice. DESIGN: Exploratory randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ten general practices in south‐west England and Cambridgeshire. All patients attending surgeries were eligible to provide RTF. INTERVENTION: Touch screens were installed in waiting areas for 12 weeks with practice staff responsible for encouraging patients to provide RTF. All practices received fortnightly feedback summaries. Four teams attended a facilitated reflection session. OUTCOMES: RTF ‘response rates’ among consulting patients were estimated, and the representativeness of touch screen users were assessed. The frequency of staff–patient interactions about RTF (direct observation) and patient views of RTF (exit survey) were summarized. Associated costs were collated. RESULTS: About 2.5% consulting patients provided RTF (range 0.7–8.0% across practices), representing a mean of 194 responses per practice. Patients aged above 65 were under‐represented among touch screen users. Receptionists rarely encouraged RTF but, when this did occur, 60% patients participated. Patients were largely positive about RTF but identified some barriers. Costs per practice for the twelve‐week period ranged from £1125 (unfacilitated team‐level feedback) to £1887 (facilitated team ± practitioner‐level feedback). The main cost was the provision of touch screens. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates for RTF were lower than those of other survey modes, although the numbers of patients providing feedback to each practice were comparable to those achieved in the English national GP patient survey. More patients might engage with RTF if the opportunity were consistently highlighted to them.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5433544
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54335442017-06-01 Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice Wright, Christine Davey, Antoinette Elmore, Natasha Carter, Mary Mounce, Luke Wilson, Ed Burt, Jenni Roland, Martin Campbell, John Health Expect Original Research Papers BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in real‐time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of RTF in UK general practice. DESIGN: Exploratory randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ten general practices in south‐west England and Cambridgeshire. All patients attending surgeries were eligible to provide RTF. INTERVENTION: Touch screens were installed in waiting areas for 12 weeks with practice staff responsible for encouraging patients to provide RTF. All practices received fortnightly feedback summaries. Four teams attended a facilitated reflection session. OUTCOMES: RTF ‘response rates’ among consulting patients were estimated, and the representativeness of touch screen users were assessed. The frequency of staff–patient interactions about RTF (direct observation) and patient views of RTF (exit survey) were summarized. Associated costs were collated. RESULTS: About 2.5% consulting patients provided RTF (range 0.7–8.0% across practices), representing a mean of 194 responses per practice. Patients aged above 65 were under‐represented among touch screen users. Receptionists rarely encouraged RTF but, when this did occur, 60% patients participated. Patients were largely positive about RTF but identified some barriers. Costs per practice for the twelve‐week period ranged from £1125 (unfacilitated team‐level feedback) to £1887 (facilitated team ± practitioner‐level feedback). The main cost was the provision of touch screens. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates for RTF were lower than those of other survey modes, although the numbers of patients providing feedback to each practice were comparable to those achieved in the English national GP patient survey. More patients might engage with RTF if the opportunity were consistently highlighted to them. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-04-28 2017-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5433544/ /pubmed/27124589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12469 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research Papers
Wright, Christine
Davey, Antoinette
Elmore, Natasha
Carter, Mary
Mounce, Luke
Wilson, Ed
Burt, Jenni
Roland, Martin
Campbell, John
Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice
title Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice
title_full Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice
title_fullStr Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice
title_full_unstemmed Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice
title_short Patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice
title_sort patients’ use and views of real‐time feedback technology in general practice
topic Original Research Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433544/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27124589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.12469
work_keys_str_mv AT wrightchristine patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT daveyantoinette patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT elmorenatasha patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT cartermary patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT mounceluke patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT wilsoned patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT burtjenni patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT rolandmartin patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice
AT campbelljohn patientsuseandviewsofrealtimefeedbacktechnologyingeneralpractice