Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27531733›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2016

Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings.

Helen Gleeson, Ana Calderon, Viren Swami, Jessica Deighton, Miranda Wolpert, Julian Edbrooke-Childs

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 144 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
144citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

144 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Reducing distress during vaccine injections: 2026 clinical practice guideline update.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

84 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Helen GleesonEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.
Ana CalderonEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.
Viren SwamiAnglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.
Jessica DeightonEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.
Miranda WolpertEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.
Julian Edbrooke-ChildsEvidence Based Practice Unit, University College London and the Anna Freud Centre, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health [UK]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesExplore how patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are collected, communicated and used to inform quality improvement (QI) across healthcare settings.

designSystematic review.

settingVarious primary and secondary care settings, including general practice, and acute and chronic care hospitals.

participantsA full range of patient populations from (children through to the elderly) and staff (from healthcare practitioners to senior managers).

methodsScientific databases were searched (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Libraries) as was grey literature. Qualitative and quantitative studies describing collection of PREM data and subsequent QI actions in any healthcare setting were included. Risk of bias was assessed using established criteria. Of 5312 initial hits, 32 full texts were screened, and 11 were included.

resultsPatient experience data were most commonly collected through surveys and used to identify small areas of incremental change to services that do not require a change to clinician behaviour (eg, changes to admission processes and producing educational materials). While staff in most studies reported having made effective improvements, authors struggled to identify what those changes were or the impact they had.

conclusionsFindings suggest there is no single best way to collect or use PREM data for QI, but they do suggest some key points to consider when planning such an approach. For instance, formal training is recommended, as a lack of expertise in QI and confidence in interpreting patient experience data effectively may continue to be a barrier to a successful shift towards a more patient-centred healthcare service. In the context of QI, more attention is required on how patient experience data will be used to inform changes to practice and, in turn, measure any impact these changes may have on patient experience.

Indexed as

Patient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SatisfactionQuality ImprovementDelivery of Health CareGeneral PracticeHospitalsHospitals, Chronic DiseaseHumansPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID27531733
PMCPMC5013495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.