ArticleBMJ open2016
Healthcare professional and patient codesign and validation of a mechanism for service users to feedback patient safety experiences following a care transfer: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Health system responsiveness: a systematic evidence mapping review of the global literature.International journal for equity in health · 2021Pooled it
- Development of a digital intervention for psychedelic preparation (DIPP).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Co-designing a community pharmacy pharmacogenomics testing service in the UK.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessing and promoting partnership between patients and health-care professionals: Co-construction of the CADICEE tool for patients and their relatives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Creating a Smartphone App for Caregivers of Children With Atopic Dermatitis With Caregivers, Health Care Professionals, and Digital Health Experts: Participatory Co-Design.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- A governance model for the application of AI in health care.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Article
- Implementing a survey for patients to provide safety experience feedback following a care transition: a feasibility study.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Article
- PReSaFe: A model of barriers and facilitators to patients providing feedback on experiences of safety.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Parents' Perspectives on Navigating the Work of Speaking Up in the NICU.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNNArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and validate a mechanism for patients to provide feedback on safety experiences following a care transfer between organisations.
designQualitative study using participatory methods (codesign workshops) and cognitive interviews. Workshop data were analysed concurrently with participants, and cognitive interviews were thematically analysed using a deductive approach based on the developed feedback mechanism.
participantsExpert patients (n=5) and healthcare professionals (n=11) were recruited purposively to develop the feedback mechanism in 2 workshops. Workshop 1 explored principles underpinning safety feedback mechanisms, and workshop 2 included the practical development of the feedback mechanism. Final design and content of the feedback mechanism (a safety survey) were verified by workshop participants, and cognitive interviews (n=28) were conducted with patients.
resultsWorkshop participants identified that safety feedback mechanisms should be patient-centred, short and concise with clear signposting on how to complete, with an option to be anonymous and balanced between positive (safe) and negative (unsafe) experiences. The agreed feedback mechanism consisted of a survey split across 3 stages of the care transfer: departure, journey and arrival. Care across organisational boundaries was recognised as being complex, with healthcare professionals acknowledging the difficulty implementing changes that impact other organisations. Cognitive interview participants agreed the content of the survey was relevant but identified barriers to completion relating to the survey formatting and understanding of a care transfer.
conclusionsParticipatory, codesign principles helped overcome differences in understandings of safety in the complex setting of care transfers when developing a safety survey. Practical barriers to the survey's usability and acceptability to patients were identified, resulting in a modified survey design. Further research is required to determine the usability and acceptability of the survey to patients and healthcare professionals, as well as identifying how governance structures should accommodate patient feedback when relating to multiple health or social care providers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.