ArticleBMJ open2017
What does patient feedback reveal about the NHS? A mixed methods study of comments posted to the NHS Choices online service.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health system responsiveness: a systematic evidence mapping review of the global literature.International journal for equity in health · 2021Pooled it
- What Do Patients Complain About Online: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy Framework Based on Patient Centeredness.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Pooled it
- Content Refinement and Multicenter Validation of the ELIGES Patient Experience Questionnaire Focused on Nursing Care During Hospitalization: Study Protocol.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Beyond gratitude: a qualitative investigation of compliment letters received by a neonatology service.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- An Exploration of Online Positive Feedback in Relation to Mental Health Nursing Practice.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Humanising processes after harm part 2: compounded harm experienced by patients and their families after safety incidents.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- The language of vaccination campaigns during COVID-19.Medical humanities · 2023Article
- Health service improvement using positive patient feedback: Systematic scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Patient feedback on hospital pharmacists' consultation skills: A feasibility study using the Interpersonal Skills Questionnaire (ISQ).PloS one · 2022Article
- A multi-perspective exploration of the understanding of patient complaints and their potential for patient safety improvement in general practice.The European journal of general practice · 2021Article
- Patient Satisfaction and Hospital Quality of Care Evaluation in Malaysia Using SERVQUAL and Facebook.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The Ins and Outs of 'Schizophrenia': Considering Diagnostic Terms as Ordinary Linguistic Expressions.The Journal of medical humanities · 2021Article
- What makes a "successful" or "unsuccessful" discharge letter? Hospital clinician and General Practitioner assessments of the quality of discharge letters.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Assessing the reliability of automatic sentiment analysis tools on rating the sentiment of reviews of NHS dental practices in England.PloS one · 2021Article
- Adult patient perspectives on receiving hospital discharge letters: a corpus analysis of patient interviews.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Online patient feedback: a cross-sectional survey of the attitudes and experiences of United Kingdom health care professionals.Journal of health services research & policy · 2019Article
- Exploring sources of patient dissatisfaction in mobile health communication: A text analysis based on structural topic model.Digital healthArticle
- Exploring UK doctors' attitudes towards online patient feedback: Thematic analysis of survey data.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the key themes of positive and negative feedback in patients' online feedback on NHS (National Health Service) services in England and to understand the specific issues within these themes and how they drive positive and negative evaluation.
designComputer-assisted quantitative and qualitative studies of 228 113 comments (28 971 142 words) of online feedback posted to the NHS Choices website. Comments containing the most frequent positive and negative evaluative words are qualitatively examined to determine the key drivers of positive and negative feedback.
participantsContributors posting comments about the NHS between March 2013 and September 2015.
resultsOverall, NHS services were evaluated positively approximately three times more often than negatively. The four key areas of focus were: treatment, communication, interpersonal skills and system/organisation. Treatment exhibited the highest proportion of positive evaluative comments (87%), followed by communication (77%), interpersonal skills (44%) and, finally, system/organisation (41%). Qualitative analysis revealed that reference to staff interpersonal skills featured prominently, even in comments relating to treatment and system/organisational issues. Positive feedback was elicited in cases of staff being caring, compassionate and knowing patients'' names, while rudeness, apathy and not listening were frequent drivers of negative feedback.
conclusionsAlthough technical competence constitutes an undoubtedly fundamental aspect of healthcare provision, staff members were much more likely to be evaluated both positively and negatively according to their interpersonal skills. Therefore, the findings reported in this study highlight the salience of such 'soft' skills to patients and emphasise the need for these to be focused upon and developed in staff training programmes, as well as ensuring that decisions around NHS funding do not result in demotivated and rushed staff. The findings also reveal a significant overlap between the four key themes in the ways that care is evaluated by patients.
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.