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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |