Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27621292›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016

Capturing patient experience: a qualitative study of implementing real-time feedback in primary care.

Mary Carter, Antoinette Davey, Christine Wright, Natasha Elmore, Jenny Newbould, Martin Roland, John Campbell, Jenni Burt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Using CollaboRATE, a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making: Results from three clinical settings in the United States.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
  15. The Friends and Family Test in general practice in England: a qualitative study of the views of staff and patients.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  16. 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

8 authors.

Mary CarterDepartment of Primary Care; University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Antoinette DaveyPrimary Care Research Group; University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Christine WrightUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Natasha ElmoreUniversity of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine; Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Jenny NewbouldRAND Europe; Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Martin RolandPrimary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
John CampbellUniversity of Exeter Medical School, Exeter.
Jenni BurtCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Cambridge.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0608-10050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent years, hospitals have made use of new technologies, such as real-time feedback, to collect patient experience information. This approach is currently rarely used in primary care settings, but may provide practices with a useful tool that enables them to take prompt, focused action to improve their services.

aimTo identify the factors inhibiting and enabling the implementation of real-time feedback in general practices. DESIGN AND

settingQualitative study embedded within an exploratory trial (July 2014 to February 2015) of a real-time feedback intervention targeting patient experience in general practices in south-west England and Cambridgeshire.

methodSemi-structured interviews (n = 22) and focus groups (n = 4, total of 28 attendees) with practice staff were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically, using a framework based on constructs from normalisation process theory.

resultsStaff engagement with real-time feedback varied considerably, and staff made sense of real-time feedback by comparing it with more familiar feedback modalities. Effective within-team communication was associated with positive attitudes towards real-time feedback. Timing of requests for feedback was important in relation to patient engagement. Real-time feedback may offer potential as a means of informing practice development, perhaps as a component of a wider programme of capturing and responding to patients' comments.

conclusionSuccessful implementation of real-time feedback requires effective communication across the practice team to engender thorough engagement. Feedback processes should be carefully introduced to fit with existing patient and practice routines. Future studies should consider making real-time feedback content relevant to specific practice needs, and support participation by all patient groups.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackPatient Care TeamAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelEnglandFocus GroupsGeneral PracticeHumansPatient SatisfactionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Qualitative Researchgeneral practicepatient experiencequalitative researchsurvey

Identifiers

PMID27621292
PMCPMC5072916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.