Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34880009›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Identifying factors that promote and limit the effective use of real-time patient experience feedback: a mixed-methods study in secondary care.

Mustafa Khanbhai, Kelsey Flott, Dave Manton, Stephanie Harrison-White, Robert Klaber, Ara Darzi, Erik Mayer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mustafa KhanbhaiImperial College London, NIHR Patient and Safety Translational Research Centre, London, UK m.khanbhai@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4434-1785
Kelsey FlottImperial College London, NIHR Patient and Safety Translational Research Centre, London, UK.
Dave MantonImperial College London, NIHR Patient and Safety Translational Research Centre, London, UK.
Stephanie Harrison-WhitePatient Experience Office, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Robert KlaberStrategy, Research and Innovation, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Ara DarziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Erik MayerImperial College London, NIHR Patient and Safety Translational Research Centre, London, UK.
NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe Friends and Family Test (FFT) is commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) in England to capture patient experience as a real-time feedback initiative for patient-centred quality improvement (QI). The aim of this study was to create a process map in order to identify the factors that promote and limit the effective use of FFT as a real-time feedback initiative for patient-centred QI.

settingThis study was conducted at a large London NHS Trust. Services include accident and emergency, inpatient, outpatient and maternity, which routinely collect FFT patient experience data.

participantsHealthcare staff and key stakeholders involved in FFT.

interventionsSemi-structured interviews were conducted on 15 participants from a broad range of professional groups to evaluate their engagement with the FFT. Interview data were recorded, transcribed and analysed for using deductive thematic analysis.

resultsConcerns related to inefficiency in the flow of FFT data, lack of time to analyse FFT reports (with emphasis on high level reporting rather than QI), insufficient access to FFT reports and limited training provided to understand FFT reports for frontline staff. The sheer volume of data received was not amenable to manual thematic analysis resulting in inability to acquire insight from the free text. This resulted in staff ambivalence towards FFT as a near real-time feedback initiative.

conclusionsThe results state that there is too much FFT free text for meaningful analysis, and the output is limited to the provision of sufficient capacity and resource to analyse the data, without consideration of other options, such as text analytics and amending the data collection tool.

Indexed as

Secondary Health CareState MedicineFeedbackFemaleHumansPatient Outcome AssessmentPregnancyQuality Improvementhealth informaticshealth policyhealth & safetyquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34880009
PMCPMC8655585
OpenAlexW4200295314

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.