Using patient experience data to develop a patient experience toolkit to improve hospital care: a mixed-methods study

Abstract

Background Patients are increasingly being asked to provide feedback about their experience of health-care services. Within the NHS, a significant level of resource is now allocated to the collection of this feedback. However, it is not well understood whether or not, or how, health-care staff are able to use these data to make improvements to future care delivery. Objective To understand and enhance how hospital staff learn from and act on patient experience (PE) feedback in order to co-design, test, refine and evaluate a Patient Experience Toolkit (PET). Design A predominantly qualitative study with four interlinking work packages. Setting Three NHS trusts in the north of England, focusing on six ward-based clinical teams (two at each trust). Methods A scoping review and qualitative exploratory study were conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. The findings of this work fed into a participatory co-design process with ward staff and patient representatives, which led to the production of the PET. This was primarily based on activities undertaken in three workshops (over the winter of 2016/17). Then, the facilitated use of the PET took place across the six wards over a 12-month period (February 2017 to February 2018). This involved testing and refinement through an action research (AR) methodology. A large, mixed-methods, independent process evaluation was conducted over the same 12-month period. Findings The testing and refinement of the PET during the AR phase, with the mixed-methods evaluation running alongside it, produced noteworthy findings. The idea that current PE data can be effectively triangulated for the purpose of improvement is largely a fallacy. Rather, additional but more relational feedback had to be collected by patient representatives, an unanticipated element of the study, to provide health-care staff with data that they could work with more easily. Multidisciplinary involvement in PE initiatives is difficult to establish unless teams already work in this way. Regardless, there is merit in involving different levels of the nursing hierarchy. Consideration of patient feedback by health-care staff can be an emotive process that may be difficult initially and that needs dedicated time and sensitive management. The six ward teams engaged variably with the AR process over a 12-month period. Some teams implemented far-reaching plans, whereas other teams focused on time-minimising ‘quick wins’. The evaluation found that facilitation of the toolkit was central to its implementation. The most important factors here were the development of relationships between people and the facilitator’s ability to navigate organisational complexity. Limitations The settings in which the PET was tested were extremely diverse, so the influence of variable context limits hard conclusions about its success. Conclusions The current manner in which PE feedback is collected and used is generally not fit for the purpose of enabling health-care staff to make meaningful local improvements. The PET was co-designed with health-care staff and patient representatives but it requires skilled facilitation to achieve successful outcomes. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A co-design of clinical virtual care pathways to engage and support families requiring neonatal intensive care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (COVES study)

“…To aid in the development of the pathways, weekly smaller working groups and full team bi-monthly 60–90 min virtual interdisciplinary research team meetings were held. Iterative bi-monthly agile co-design sessions and live online documents available to the full research team were utilized to further adapt and revise the co-designed pathways ( Sheard et al, 2019 ). Additional need for iterative agile sessions were determined based on saturation of data obtained.…”

Promoting physical activity and physical function in people with long-term conditions in primary care: the Function First realist synthesis with co-design

“…This method has been used previously in service improvement work, training of health professionals, and research. [104][105][106][107][108] The METHODOLOGY AND THEORY-BUILDING STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOPS NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk activity into 'co-design' activity through making tangible outputs. By using these tangible forms, it set some expectations early on in the programme of work about the transition from intangible to tangible (i.e.…”

Absorbing it all: A meta-ethnography of parents’ unfolding experiences of newborn screening

“…It is in this context of increasing international dialogue around the appropriate means and ends of newborn screening policies that the necessity of exploring the perspectives of those directly impacted by such screening is now critical. The role of lived, patient experience evidence is increasingly recognised in policy and guideline development ( Sheard et al, 2019 , Staniszewska et al, 2010 ). It is only through a systematic analysis of this research evidence that the “real world” impacts of newborn screening, as conceptualised and prioritised by the families who have directly experienced it, can be adequately explored, and represented, in these emergent debates.…”

“…It has been argued that qualitative research on newborn screening experiences has been marginalised in debates around screening in favour of quantitative economic and clinical meta-analyses ( Grob, 2019 ). To overlook these perspectives risks impoverishing our understandings of these debates, as qualitative methodologies have the advantage of being able to capture the complexity, and nuance, of patient experience that is often missed by reliance on quantitative methods alone ( Sheard et al, 2019 ). Moreover, qualitative research may allow for the identification of the dimensions of the screening experience most significant to patients, or parents, rather than those prioritised by researchers and clinicians.…”