Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31345985›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

Patient experience and reflective learning (PEARL): a mixed methods protocol for staff insight development in acute and intensive care medicine in the UK.

Olivia Brookes, Celia Brown, Carolyn Tarrant, Julian Archer, Duncan Buckley, Lisa Marie Buckley, Ian Clement, Felicity Evison, Fang Gao Smith, Chris Gibbins and 14 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Reflection in practice: How can patient experience feedback trigger staff reflection in hospital acute care settings?Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  4. 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

24 authors at 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Olivia BrookesResearch, Development & Innovation, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7944-4231
Celia BrownWarwick Medical School (WMS), The University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7526-0793
Carolyn TarrantUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Julian ArcherRoyal Australasian College of Surgeons, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Duncan BuckleyBirmingham, UK.
Lisa Marie BuckleyBirmingham, UK.
Ian ClementNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Felicity EvisonDepartment of Health Informatics, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9378-7548
Fang Gao SmithInstitute of Inflammation and Ageing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Chris GibbinsNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Emma HaytonUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Jennifer JonesUniversity of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Richard LilfordDivision of Health and Population Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Randeep MullhiUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Greg PackerUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Gavin PerkinsClinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Birmingham, UK.
Jonathan SheltonNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Catherine SnelsonCritical Care, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Paul SullivanCLAHRC, Imperial College, London, UK.
Ivo VlaevWarwick Business School, Coventry, UK.
Daniel WolstenholmeNIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber, Sheffield, UK.
Stephen E WrightAnaesthesia, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Julian BionIntensive Care Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
On-behalf-of the PEARL Collaboration
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Warwick · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBHeart of England NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College London · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospital · GBNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care Yorkshire and HumberNIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre · GBRoyal Australasian College of Surgeons · AUUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/14/156/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPatient and staff experiences are strongly influenced by attitudes and behaviours, and provide important insights into care quality. Patient and staff feedback could be used more effectively to enhance behaviours and improve care through systematic integration with techniques for reflective learning. We aim to develop a reflective learning framework and toolkit for healthcare staff to improve patient, family and staff experience. METHODS & ANALYSIS: Local project teams including staff and patients from the acute medical units (AMUs) and intensive care units (ICUs) of three National Health Service trusts will implement two experience surveys derived from existing instruments: a continuous patient and relative survey and an annual staff survey. Survey data will be supplemented by ethnographic interviews and observations in the workplace to evaluate barriers to and facilitators of reflective learning. Using facilitated iterative co-design, local project teams will supplement survey data with their experiences of healthcare to identify events, actions, activities and interventions which promote personal insight and empathy through reflective learning. Outputs will be collated by the central project team to develop a reflective learning framework and toolkit which will be fed back to the local groups for review, refinement and piloting. The development process will be mapped to a conceptual theory of reflective learning which combines psychological and pedagogical theories of learning, alongside theories of behaviour change based on capability, opportunity and motivation influencing behaviour. The output will be a locally-adaptable workplace-based toolkit providing guidance on using reflective learning to incorporate patient and staff experience in routine clinical activities. ETHICS & DISSEMINATION: The PEARL project has received ethics approval from the London Brent Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref 16/LO/224). We propose a national cluster randomised step-wedge trial of the toolkit developed for large-scale evaluation of impact on patient outcomes.

Indexed as

LearningAttitude of Health PersonnelCritical CareEducation, ProfessionalEmpathyHumansProfessional CompetenceQualitative ResearchQuality of Health CareStaff DevelopmentState MedicineUnited Kingdombehaviour changeempathymedical carepatient experiencequality improvementreflective learningstaff experience

Identifiers

PMID31345985
PMCPMC6661565
OpenAlexW2964000459

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.