Implementing a survey for patients to provide safety experience feedback following a care transition: a feasibility study.


Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Aug 2019
Historique:
received: 21 02 2019
accepted: 21 08 2019
entrez: 1 9 2019
pubmed: 1 9 2019
medline: 18 12 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The aim was to determine the feasibility of implementing a patient safety survey which measures patients' experiences of their own safety relating to a care transition. This included limited-efficacy testing, determining acceptability (to patients and staff), and investigating integration with existing systems and practices from the staff perspective. Mixed methods study in 16 wards across four hospitals, from two English NHS Trusts and four clinical areas; cardiology, care of older people, orthopaedics, stroke. Limited-efficacy testing of a previously validated survey was conducted through collection of patient reports of safety experiences, and thematic comparison with staff safety incident reports. Patient acceptability was determined through analysis of survey response rates and semi-structured interviews. Staff acceptability and integration were investigated through analysis of survey distribution rates, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Patients returned 366 valid surveys (16.4% response rate) from 2824 distributed surveys (25.1% distribution rate). Older age was a contributing factor to lower responses. Delays were the largest safety concern for patients. Staff incident report themes included five not present in the safety survey data (documentation, pressure ulcers, devices or equipment, staffing shortages, and patient actions). Patient interviews (n = 28) identified that providing feedback was acceptable, subject to certain conditions being met; cognitive-cultural (patient understanding and prioritisation of safety), structural-procedural (opportunities, means and ease of providing feedback without fear of reprisals), and learning and change (closure of the feedback loop). Staff (n = 21) valued patient feedback but barriers to collecting and using the feedback included resource limitations, staff turnover and reluctance to over-burden patients. Patients can provide meaningful feedback on their experiences and perceptions of safety in the context of care transitions. Providing this feedback was acceptable to some patients, subject to certain conditions being met. Safety experience feedback from patients was also acceptable to staff; quantitative data was perceived as useful to identify potential risks, and qualitative data informed types of changes required to improve care. However, patient feedback was not integrated into any quality improvement initiatives, suggesting there are still significant challenges to healthcare teams or organisations utilising patient feedback, particularly in relation to care transitions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The aim was to determine the feasibility of implementing a patient safety survey which measures patients' experiences of their own safety relating to a care transition. This included limited-efficacy testing, determining acceptability (to patients and staff), and investigating integration with existing systems and practices from the staff perspective.
METHODS METHODS
Mixed methods study in 16 wards across four hospitals, from two English NHS Trusts and four clinical areas; cardiology, care of older people, orthopaedics, stroke. Limited-efficacy testing of a previously validated survey was conducted through collection of patient reports of safety experiences, and thematic comparison with staff safety incident reports. Patient acceptability was determined through analysis of survey response rates and semi-structured interviews. Staff acceptability and integration were investigated through analysis of survey distribution rates, semi-structured interviews and focus groups.
RESULTS RESULTS
Patients returned 366 valid surveys (16.4% response rate) from 2824 distributed surveys (25.1% distribution rate). Older age was a contributing factor to lower responses. Delays were the largest safety concern for patients. Staff incident report themes included five not present in the safety survey data (documentation, pressure ulcers, devices or equipment, staffing shortages, and patient actions). Patient interviews (n = 28) identified that providing feedback was acceptable, subject to certain conditions being met; cognitive-cultural (patient understanding and prioritisation of safety), structural-procedural (opportunities, means and ease of providing feedback without fear of reprisals), and learning and change (closure of the feedback loop). Staff (n = 21) valued patient feedback but barriers to collecting and using the feedback included resource limitations, staff turnover and reluctance to over-burden patients.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Patients can provide meaningful feedback on their experiences and perceptions of safety in the context of care transitions. Providing this feedback was acceptable to some patients, subject to certain conditions being met. Safety experience feedback from patients was also acceptable to staff; quantitative data was perceived as useful to identify potential risks, and qualitative data informed types of changes required to improve care. However, patient feedback was not integrated into any quality improvement initiatives, suggesting there are still significant challenges to healthcare teams or organisations utilising patient feedback, particularly in relation to care transitions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31470853
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4447-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-4447-9
pmc: PMC6716906
doi:

Types de publication

Evaluation Study Journal Article Multicenter Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

613

Subventions

Organisme : The Health Foundation
ID : 7204

Références

BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):768-70
pubmed: 10720363
BMJ. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):791-4
pubmed: 10720370
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(31):1-256
pubmed: 11809125
Ann Intern Med. 2003 Feb 4;138(3):161-7
pubmed: 12558354
CMAJ. 2004 Feb 3;170(3):345-9
pubmed: 14757670
JAMA. 2007 Feb 28;297(8):831-41
pubmed: 17327525
Ann Intern Med. 2008 Jul 15;149(2):100-8
pubmed: 18626049
CJEM. 2008 Sep;10(5):421-7
pubmed: 18826729
Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Dec;17(6):437-41
pubmed: 19064659
Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):452-7
pubmed: 19362699
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Apr;19(2):148-57
pubmed: 20351164
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Oct;19(5):e10
pubmed: 20427301
BMJ. 2010 Sep 17;341:c4587
pubmed: 20851841
Med Care. 2011 Oct;49(10):948-55
pubmed: 21642876
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Feb;21(2):112-7
pubmed: 22069114
J Patient Saf. 2009 Dec;5(4):201-4
pubmed: 22130211
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Dec;21 Suppl 1:i67-75
pubmed: 23112285
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Dec;21 Suppl 1:i89-96
pubmed: 23112290
BMJ Open. 2013 Jan 03;3(1):null
pubmed: 23293244
Health Expect. 2013 Sep;16(3):e36-47
pubmed: 23374430
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 06;13:206
pubmed: 23742265
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jul 04;13:259
pubmed: 23826970
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2015 Jan;20(1 Suppl):35-44
pubmed: 25472988
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jan;26(1):42-53
pubmed: 26847140
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 May 12;10:769-79
pubmed: 27274204
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):502-507
pubmed: 27325796
BMJ Open. 2016 Jul 12;6(7):e011222
pubmed: 27406641
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Jul 25;16:297
pubmed: 27457059
Qual Health Res. 2017 Jan;27(1):24-36
pubmed: 27469975
Health Expect. 2017 Aug;20(4):771-778
pubmed: 27860200
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Nov 28;16(1):676
pubmed: 27894289
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;178:19-27
pubmed: 28189820
Br J Gen Pract. 2017 May;67(658):e370-e376
pubmed: 28450345
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Aug 1;29(4):521-526
pubmed: 28541430
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018 Jan;23(1):36-43
pubmed: 29235364
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan;28(1):3-6
pubmed: 29764929
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar;28(3):180-189
pubmed: 30032125
J Patient Saf Risk Manag. 2019 Feb 1;24(1):30-36
pubmed: 30842993
J Health Soc Behav. 2019 Jun;60(2):188-203
pubmed: 31113253

Auteurs

Jason Scott (J)

Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. jason.scott@northumbria.ac.uk.

Emily Heavey (E)

Department of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK.

Justin Waring (J)

Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.

Aoife De Brún (A)

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Health Systems, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.

Pamela Dawson (P)

PD Education and Health Consulting Ltd, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH