Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35113022›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Enriching the Value of Patient Experience Feedback: Web-Based Dashboard Development Using Co-design and Heuristic Evaluation.

Mustafa Khanbhai, Joshua Symons, Kelsey Flott, Stephanie Harrison-White, Jamie Spofforth, Robert Klaber, David Manton, Ara Darzi, Erik Mayer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. From Data to Decision: Design and Evaluation of a Patient Safety Dashboard.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Mustafa KhanbhaiPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, National Institute for Health Research/Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4434-1785
Joshua SymonsPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, National Institute for Health Research/Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7016-1104
Kelsey FlottPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, National Institute for Health Research/Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7835-4322
Stephanie Harrison-WhiteImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2042-3150
Jamie SpofforthImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7008-0008
Robert KlaberImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1191-496X
David MantonPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, National Institute for Health Research/Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6490-7272
Ara DarziPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, National Institute for Health Research/Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7815-7989
Erik MayerPatient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, National Institute for Health Research/Institute of Global Health Innovation, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5509-4580

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is an abundance of patient experience data held within health care organizations, but stakeholders and staff are often unable to use the output in a meaningful and timely way to improve care delivery. Dashboards, which use visualized data to summarize key patient experience feedback, have the potential to address these issues.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to develop a patient experience dashboard with an emphasis on Friends and Family Test (FFT) reporting, as per the national policy drive.

methodsA 2-stage approach was used-participatory co-design involving 20 co-designers to develop a dashboard prototype, followed by iterative dashboard testing. Language analysis was performed on free-text patient experience data from the FFT, and the themes and sentiments generated were used to populate the dashboard with associated FFT metrics. Heuristic evaluation and usability testing were conducted to refine the dashboard and assess user satisfaction using the system usability score.

resultsThe qualitative analysis from the co-design process informed the development of the dashboard prototype with key dashboard requirements and a significant preference for bubble chart display. The heuristic evaluation revealed that most cumulative scores had no usability problems (18/20, 90%), had cosmetic problems only (7/20, 35%), or had minor usability problems (5/20, 25%). The mean System Usability Scale score was 89.7 (SD 7.9), suggesting an excellent rating.

conclusionsThe growing capacity to collect and process patient experience data suggests that data visualization will be increasingly important in turning feedback into improvements to care. Through heuristic usability, we demonstrated that very large FFT data can be presented in a thematically driven, simple visual display without the loss of the nuances and still allow for the exploration of the original free-text comments. This study establishes guidance for optimizing the design of patient experience dashboards that health care providers find meaningful, which in turn drives patient-centered care.

Indexed as

co-designfriends and family testheuristic evaluationpatient experiencequality dashboardusability

Identifiers

PMID35113022
PMCPMC8855286

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.