BackgroundDespite widespread adoption of patient feedback surveys in international health‐care systems, including the English NHS, evidence of a demonstrable impact of surveys on service improvement is sparse.ObjectiveTo explore the views of primary care practice staff regarding the utility of patient experience surveys.DesignQualitative focus groups.Setting and participantsStaff from 14 English general practices.ResultsWhilst participants engaged with feedback from patient experience surveys, they routinely questioned its validity and reliability. Participants identified surveys as having a number of useful functions: for patients, as a potentially therapeutic way of getting their voice heard; for practice staff, as a way of identifying areas of improvement; and for GPs, as a source of evidence for professional development and appraisal. Areas of potential change stimulated by survey feedback included redesigning front‐line services, managing patient expectations and managing the performance of GPs. Despite this, practice staff struggled to identify and action changes based on survey feedback alone.DiscussionWhilst surveys may be used to endorse existing high‐quality service delivery, their use in informing changes in service delivery is more challenging for practice staff. Drawing on the Utility Index framework, we identified concerns relating to reliability and validity, cost and feasibility acceptability and educational impact, which combine to limit the utility of patient survey feedback.ConclusionsFeedback from patient experience surveys has great potential. However, without a specific and renewed focus on how to translate feedback into action, this potential will remain incompletely realized.

BackgroundThe UK government has encouraged NHS services to obtain patient feedback to support the further development of patient-centred care. In 2009, the English GP Patient Survey included a sample of 5.5 million, but little is known about its potential utility in informing developments aimed at improving the quality of patients' experiences of primary care. AimTo investigate primary care providers' response to feedback on patient experience from a national survey. Design and settingQualitative interview study in 10 general practices from four primary care trusts in England. MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs, practice nurses, and practice managers (n = 37). Transcripts were analysed thematically. ResultsAlthough some participants reported making changes to their practice in response to the survey data, many expressed doubts about the credibility of the results. Key issues included: concerns about practical aspects of the survey, such as the response rate and representativeness of the sample; the view that it gave insufficient detail to facilitate change and failed to address some salient issues; and unease about the influence of political influences underpinning its introduction and use. ConclusionAlthough, in general, primary care professionals have positive attitudes towards patient feedback, this study suggests a mismatch between the conventional demonstration of the objectivity of a questionnaire survey and the attitudes and experiences of those receiving the data. This is likely to prevent doctors from engaging constructively with the survey. These concerns may well militate against the potential of the survey to act as a simple means of capturing, and effectively using, feedback from patients. Keywordsprimary healthcare; qualitative research; reliability and validity; surveys.

DC et al. (14 more authors) (2021) Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2021 (10). ARTN CD011589.

BackgroundThere has been an increased focus towards improving quality of care within the NHS in the last 15 years; as part of this, there has been an emphasis on the importance of patient feedback within policy, through National Service Frameworks and the Quality and Outcomes Framework. The development and administration of large-scale national patient surveys to gather representative data on patient experience, such as the national GP Patient Survey in primary care, has been one such initiative. However, it remains unclear how the survey is used by patients and what impact the data may have on practice.ObjectivesOur research aimed to gain insight into how different patients use surveys to record experiences of general practice; how primary care staff respond to feedback; and how to engage primary care staff in responding to feedback.MethodsWe used methods including quantitative survey analyses, focus groups, interviews, an exploratory trial and an experimental vignette study.Results(1)Understanding patient experience data. Patients readily criticised their care when reviewing consultations on video, although they were reluctant to be critical when completing questionnaires. When trained raters judged communication during a consultation to be poor, a substantial proportion of patients rated the doctor as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Absolute scores on questionnaire surveys should be treated with caution; they may present an overoptimistic view of general practitioner (GP) care. However, relative rankings to identify GPs who are better or poorer at communicating may be acceptable, as long as statistically reliable figures are obtained. Most patients have a particular GP whom they prefer to see; however, up to 40% of people who have such a preference are unable regularly to see the doctor of their choice. Users of out-of-hours care reported worse experiences when the service was run by a commercial provider than when it was run by a not-for profit or NHS provider. (2)Understanding patient experience in minority ethnic groups. Asian respondents to the GP Patient Survey tend to be registered with practices with generally low scores, explaining about half of the difference in the poorer reported experiences of South Asian patients than white British patients. We found no evidence that South Asian patients used response scales differently. When viewing the same consultation in an experimental vignette study, South Asian respondents gave higher scores than white British respondents. This suggests that the low scores given by South Asian respondents in patient experience surveys reflect care that is genuinely worse than that experienced by their white British counterparts. We also found that service users of mixed or Asian ethnicity reported lower scores than white respondents when rating out-of-hours services. (3)Using patient experience data. We found that measuring GP–patient communication at practice level masks variation between how good individual doctors are within a practice. In general practices and in out-of-hours centres, staff were sceptical about the value of patient surveys and their ability to support service reconfiguration and quality improvement. In both settings, surveys were deemed necessary but not sufficient. Staff expressed a preference for free-text comments, as these provided more tangible, actionable data. An exploratory trial of real-time feedback (RTF) found that only 2.5% of consulting patients left feedback using touch screens in the waiting room, although more did so when reminded by staff. The representativeness of responding patients remains to be evaluated. Staff were broadly positive about using RTF, and practices valued the ability to include their own questions. Staff benefited from having a facilitated session and protected time to discuss patient feedback.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate the importance of patient experience feedback as a means of informing NHS care, and confirm that surveys are a valuable resource for monitoring national trends in quality of care. However, surveys may be insufficient in themselves to fully capture patient feedback, and in practice GPs rarely used the results of surveys for quality improvement. The impact of patient surveys appears to be limited and effort should be invested in making the results of surveys more meaningful to practice staff. There were several limitations of this programme of research. Practice recruitment for our in-hours studies took place in two broad geographical areas, which may not be fully representative of practices nationally. Our focus was on patient experience in primary care; secondary care settings may face different challenges in implementing quality improvement initiatives driven by patient feedback. Recommendations for future research include consideration of alternative feedback methods to better support patients to identify poor care; investigation into the factors driving poorer experiences of communication in South Asian patient groups; further investigation of how best to deliver patient feedback to clinicians to engage them and to foster quality improvement; and further research to support the development and implementation of interventions aiming to improve care when deficiencies in patient experience of care are identified.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Objectives To determine the extent to which practice level scores mask variation in individual performance between doctors within a practice.Design Analysis of postal survey of patients’ experience of face-to-face consultations with individual general practitioners in a stratified quota sample of primary care practices. Setting Twenty five English general practices, selected to include a range of practice scores on doctor-patient communication items in the English national GP Patient Survey.Participants 7721 of 15 172 patients (response rate 50.9%) who consulted with 105 general practitioners in 25 practices between October 2011 and June 2013.Main outcome measure Score on doctor-patient communication items from post-consultation surveys of patients for each participating general practitioner. The amount of variance in each of six outcomes that was attributable to the practices, to the doctors, and to the patients and other residual sources of variation was calculated using hierarchical linear models.Results After control for differences in patients’ age, sex, ethnicity, and health status, the proportion of variance in communication scores that was due to differences between doctors (6.4%) was considerably more than that due to practices (1.8%). The findings also suggest that higher performing practices usually contain only higher performing doctors. However, lower performing practices may contain doctors with a wide range of communication scores.Conclusions Aggregating patients’ ratings of doctors’ communication skills at practice level can mask considerable variation in the performance of individual doctors, particularly in lower performing practices. Practice level surveys may be better used to “screen” for concerns about performance that require an individual level survey. Higher scoring practices are unlikely to include lower scoring doctors. However, lower scoring practices require further investigation at the level of the individual doctor to distinguish higher and lower scoring general practitioners.