Cargando…

Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting

Purpose: In the era of value-based healthcare, one strives for the most optimal outcomes and experiences from the perspective of the patient. So, patient experiences have become a key quality indicator for healthcare. While these are supposed to drive quality improvement (QI), their use and effectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bastemeijer, Carla M, Boosman, Hileen, van Ewijk, Hans, Verweij, Lisanne M, Voogt, Lennard, Hazelzet, Jan A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31191062
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S201737
_version_ 1783421542924812288
author Bastemeijer, Carla M
Boosman, Hileen
van Ewijk, Hans
Verweij, Lisanne M
Voogt, Lennard
Hazelzet, Jan A
author_facet Bastemeijer, Carla M
Boosman, Hileen
van Ewijk, Hans
Verweij, Lisanne M
Voogt, Lennard
Hazelzet, Jan A
author_sort Bastemeijer, Carla M
collection PubMed
description Purpose: In the era of value-based healthcare, one strives for the most optimal outcomes and experiences from the perspective of the patient. So, patient experiences have become a key quality indicator for healthcare. While these are supposed to drive quality improvement (QI), their use and effectiveness for this purpose has been questioned. The aim of this systematic review was to provide insight into QI interventions used in a hospital setting and their effects on improving patient experiences, and possible barriers and promoters for QI work. Methods: Prisma guidelines were used to design this review. International academic literature was searched in Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, PubMed Publisher, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. In total, 3,289 studies were retrieved and independently screened by the first two authors for eligibility and methodological quality. Data was extracted on the study purpose, setting, design, targeted patient experience domains, QI strategies, results of QI, barriers, and promotors for QI. Results: Twenty-one pre–post intervention studies were included for review. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Tool. QI strategies used were staff education, patient education, audit and feedback, clinician reminders, organizational change, and policy change. Twenty studies reported improvement in patient experience, 14 studies of the 21 included studies reported statistical significance. Most studies (n=17) reported data-related barriers (eg, questionnaire quality), professional, and/or organizational barriers (eg, skepticism among staff), and 14 studies mentioned specific promoters (eg, engaging staff and patients) for QI. Conclusions: Several patient experience domains are targeted for QI using diverse strategies and methodological approaches. Most studies reported at least one improvement and also barriers and promoters that may influence QI work. Future research should address these barriers and promoters in order to enhance methodological quality and improve patient experiences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6535098
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65350982019-06-12 Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting Bastemeijer, Carla M Boosman, Hileen van Ewijk, Hans Verweij, Lisanne M Voogt, Lennard Hazelzet, Jan A Patient Relat Outcome Meas Review Purpose: In the era of value-based healthcare, one strives for the most optimal outcomes and experiences from the perspective of the patient. So, patient experiences have become a key quality indicator for healthcare. While these are supposed to drive quality improvement (QI), their use and effectiveness for this purpose has been questioned. The aim of this systematic review was to provide insight into QI interventions used in a hospital setting and their effects on improving patient experiences, and possible barriers and promoters for QI work. Methods: Prisma guidelines were used to design this review. International academic literature was searched in Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, PubMed Publisher, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. In total, 3,289 studies were retrieved and independently screened by the first two authors for eligibility and methodological quality. Data was extracted on the study purpose, setting, design, targeted patient experience domains, QI strategies, results of QI, barriers, and promotors for QI. Results: Twenty-one pre–post intervention studies were included for review. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Tool. QI strategies used were staff education, patient education, audit and feedback, clinician reminders, organizational change, and policy change. Twenty studies reported improvement in patient experience, 14 studies of the 21 included studies reported statistical significance. Most studies (n=17) reported data-related barriers (eg, questionnaire quality), professional, and/or organizational barriers (eg, skepticism among staff), and 14 studies mentioned specific promoters (eg, engaging staff and patients) for QI. Conclusions: Several patient experience domains are targeted for QI using diverse strategies and methodological approaches. Most studies reported at least one improvement and also barriers and promoters that may influence QI work. Future research should address these barriers and promoters in order to enhance methodological quality and improve patient experiences. Dove 2019-05-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6535098/ /pubmed/31191062 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S201737 Text en © 2019 Bastemeijer et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Bastemeijer, Carla M
Boosman, Hileen
van Ewijk, Hans
Verweij, Lisanne M
Voogt, Lennard
Hazelzet, Jan A
Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting
title Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting
title_full Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting
title_fullStr Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting
title_full_unstemmed Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting
title_short Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting
title_sort patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6535098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31191062
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S201737
work_keys_str_mv AT bastemeijercarlam patientexperiencesasystematicreviewofqualityimprovementinterventionsinahospitalsetting
AT boosmanhileen patientexperiencesasystematicreviewofqualityimprovementinterventionsinahospitalsetting
AT vanewijkhans patientexperiencesasystematicreviewofqualityimprovementinterventionsinahospitalsetting
AT verweijlisannem patientexperiencesasystematicreviewofqualityimprovementinterventionsinahospitalsetting
AT voogtlennard patientexperiencesasystematicreviewofqualityimprovementinterventionsinahospitalsetting
AT hazelzetjana patientexperiencesasystematicreviewofqualityimprovementinterventionsinahospitalsetting