Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25768807›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2015

Real-time patient survey data during routine clinical activities for rapid-cycle quality improvement.

James Lucius Wofford, Claudia L Campos, Robert E Jones, Sheila F Stevens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patients' use and views of real-time feedback technology in general practice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Trial
  3. Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Capturing patient experience: a qualitative study of implementing real-time feedback in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Article
  8. Patient-reported financial barriers to adherence to treatment in neurology.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

James Lucius WoffordWake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States. jwofford@wakehealth.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3062-9462

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSurveying patients is increasingly important for evaluating and improving health care delivery, but practical survey strategies during routine care activities have not been available.

objectiveWe examined the feasibility of conducting routine patient surveys in a primary care clinic using commercially available technology (Web-based survey creation, deployment on tablet computers, cloud-based management of survey data) to expedite and enhance several steps in data collection and management for rapid quality improvement cycles.

methodsWe used a Web-based data management tool (survey creation, deployment on tablet computers, real-time data accumulation and display of survey results) to conduct four patient surveys during routine clinic sessions over a one-month period. Each survey consisted of three questions and focused on a specific patient care domain (dental care, waiting room experience, care access/continuity, Internet connectivity).

resultsOf the 727 available patients during clinic survey days, 316 patients (43.4%) attempted the survey, and 293 (40.3%) completed the survey. For the four 3-question surveys, the average time per survey was overall 40.4 seconds, with a range of 5.4 to 20.3 seconds for individual questions. Yes/No questions took less time than multiple choice questions (average 9.6 seconds versus 14.0). Average response time showed no clear pattern by order of questions or by proctor strategy, but monotonically increased with number of words in the question (<20 words, 21-30 words, >30 words)-8.0, 11.8, 16.8, seconds, respectively.

conclusionsThis technology-enabled data management system helped capture patient opinions, accelerate turnaround of survey data, with minimal impact on a busy primary care clinic. This new model of patient survey data management is feasible and sustainable in a busy office setting, supports and engages clinicians in the quality improvement process, and harmonizes with the vision of a learning health care system.

Indexed as

information management/informaticsoffice practice issues/practice reengineeringpatient-centered carequality improvement

Identifiers

PMID25768807
PMCPMC4376172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.