Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33141857›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2020

Six years of measuring patient experiences in Belgium: Limited improvement and lack of association with improvement strategies.

Astrid Van Wilder, Kris Vanhaecht, Dirk De Ridder, Bianca Cox, Jonas Brouwers, Fien Claessens, Dirk De Wachter, Svin Deneckere, Dirk Ramaekers, Else Tambuyzer and 2 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Development of a patient-reported experience measure for chronic inflammatory skin diseases.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2022
    Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Astrid Van WilderLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-7475-4890
Kris VanhaechtLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.
Dirk De RidderLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.
Bianca CoxLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9824-6276
Jonas BrouwersLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0202-6581
Fien ClaessensLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6404-5660
Dirk De WachterFlemish Institute for Quality of Care, Brussels, Belgium.
Svin DeneckereLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.
Dirk RamaekersLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.
Else TambuyzerFlemish Patient Platform, Brussels, Belgium.
Ilse WeeghmansFlemish Patient Platform, Brussels, Belgium.
Luk BruyneelLeuven Institute for Healthcare Policy, KU Leuven-University of Leuven, Leuven, Flanders, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine trends in patient experiences in the period 2014-2019, describe improvement strategies implemented by hospitals in the same period, and study associations between patient experiences and implemented strategies.

designMulti-center retrospective region-wide observational design.

settingFlanders, Belgium.

participants44 out of 46 Flemish acute-care hospitals publicly reporting patient experiences via the Flemish Patient Survey (FPS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcomes were the two global FPS ratings: percentage of patients rating the hospital 9 or 10 and percentage of patients definitely recommending the hospital. Secondary outcomes were the average top-box score percentages for each of the 8 remaining dimensions of the FPS.

resultsBetween 2014 and 2019, there was a significant improvement in patients scoring the hospital 9 or 10 (56% to 61%) and patients definitely recommending (67% to 70%) the hospital. Significant increases in patient experiences over time were also observed in other dimensions, except for the dimension discharge. Hospital key informants reported various improvement strategies related to patient experiences with care and the FPS. Feedback to nursing wards (n = 44, 100%) and clinicians (n = 39, 89%) were most common. Overall, most improvement strategies were not or only weakly associated with patient experience ratings in 2019 and changes in ratings over time. Still, positive associations were discovered between the strategies 'nursing ward interventions' and 'hospital wide education' and recommendation of the hospital.

conclusionsPatient experiences have improved modestly in Flemish acute-care hospitals. Hospitals report to have invested in patient experience improvement strategies but positive associations between such strategies and FPS scores are weak, although there is potential in further exploring nursing ward interventions and hospital wide education. Hospitals should continue their efforts to improve the patient's experience, but with a more targeted approach, taking the lessons learned on the efficacy of strategies into consideration.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionQuality ImprovementBelgiumHospitalsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID33141857
PMCPMC7608918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.