Health service improvement using positive patient feedback: Systematic scoping review.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
07
09
2022
accepted:
14
05
2023
medline:
9
10
2023
pubmed:
5
10
2023
entrez:
5
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare services regularly receive patient feedback, most of which is positive. Empirical studies suggest that health services can use positive feedback to create patient benefit. Our aim was to map all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates change in healthcare settings. Empirical studies in English were systematically identified through database searches (ACM Digital Library, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO), forwards and backwards citation, and expert consultation. We summarise the characteristics of included studies and the feedback they consider, present a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings, and provide narrative summaries of quantitative findings. 68 papers were included, describing research conducted across six continents, with qualitative (n = 51), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed (n = 7) methods. Only two studies were interventional. The most common settings were hospitals (n = 27) and community healthcare (n = 19). The most common recipients were nurses (n = 29). Most outcomes described were desirable. These were categorised as (a) short-term emotional change for healthcare workers (including feeling motivated and improved psychological wellbeing); (b) work-home interactional change for healthcare workers (such as improved home-life relationships); (c) work-related change for healthcare workers (such as improved performance and staff retention). Some undesirable outcomes were described, including envy when not receiving positive feedback. The impact of feedback may be moderated by characteristics of particular healthcare roles, such as night shift workers having less interaction time with patients. Some factors moderating the change created by feedback are modifiable. Further interventional research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of receiving positive feedback in creating specific forms of change such as increases in staff retention. Healthcare managers may wish to use positive feedback more regularly, and to address barriers to staff receiving feedback.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Healthcare services regularly receive patient feedback, most of which is positive. Empirical studies suggest that health services can use positive feedback to create patient benefit. Our aim was to map all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates change in healthcare settings.
METHODS
Empirical studies in English were systematically identified through database searches (ACM Digital Library, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO), forwards and backwards citation, and expert consultation. We summarise the characteristics of included studies and the feedback they consider, present a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings, and provide narrative summaries of quantitative findings.
RESULTS
68 papers were included, describing research conducted across six continents, with qualitative (n = 51), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed (n = 7) methods. Only two studies were interventional. The most common settings were hospitals (n = 27) and community healthcare (n = 19). The most common recipients were nurses (n = 29). Most outcomes described were desirable. These were categorised as (a) short-term emotional change for healthcare workers (including feeling motivated and improved psychological wellbeing); (b) work-home interactional change for healthcare workers (such as improved home-life relationships); (c) work-related change for healthcare workers (such as improved performance and staff retention). Some undesirable outcomes were described, including envy when not receiving positive feedback. The impact of feedback may be moderated by characteristics of particular healthcare roles, such as night shift workers having less interaction time with patients. Some factors moderating the change created by feedback are modifiable.
CONCLUSION
Further interventional research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of receiving positive feedback in creating specific forms of change such as increases in staff retention. Healthcare managers may wish to use positive feedback more regularly, and to address barriers to staff receiving feedback.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37796785
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275045
pii: PONE-D-22-24980
pmc: PMC10553339
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0275045Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 212792/Z/18/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Lloyd et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have the following competing interests: James Munro holds a salaried role as chief executive officer of Care Opinion CIC, a non-profit company providing an online feedback platform for health services across the UK. At the time of submission, Amy Gaskin-Williams held a salaried role as Deputy Head of Involvement, Experience and Volunteering at Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (NottsHCT), an integrated mental health and community NHS Provider Trust. NottsHCT routinely collect and analysis patient feedback. Joanne Loughlin-Ridley holds a salaried role as Insight & Feedback Lead with NHS England (NHSE). Clare Enston holds a salaried role as Deputy Director – Insight and Feedback with NHSE. NHSE leads the National Health Service (NHS) in England and drives continuous improvement in patients experience. It oversees a number of feedback mechanisms which can support health service improvement work. Joanne Loughlin-Ridley and Clare Enston have associated with the University of Nottingham for the purposes of this work.
Références
BMC Infect Dis. 2015 Sep 30;15:404
pubmed: 26424656
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 1;16(12):e0259252
pubmed: 34851966
BMJ Qual Saf. 2021 Jun;30(6):484-492
pubmed: 32641354
Nefrologia (Engl Ed). 2020 Jan - Feb;40(1):74-90
pubmed: 31420101
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Feb;27(2):110-118
pubmed: 28971881
J Nurs Manag. 2019 Mar;27(2):286-300
pubmed: 30084234
BMJ Open. 2017 Apr 27;7(4):e013821
pubmed: 28450463
Contemp Nurse. 2013 Aug;45(1):95-100
pubmed: 24099230
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):749
pubmed: 29157254
Acad Med. 2013 Mar;88(3):382-9
pubmed: 23348093
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Apr 25;13:149
pubmed: 23617375
Hum Resour Health. 2014 May 25;12:30
pubmed: 24886146
Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2015 Jun;19(3):292-6
pubmed: 26000579
Breathe (Sheff). 2017 Dec;13(4):327-333
pubmed: 29209427
Health Expect. 2022 Feb;25(1):149-162
pubmed: 34543519
Health Expect. 2019 Jun;22(3):317-326
pubmed: 31016863
J Appl Psychol. 2022 Jun;107(6):987-1008
pubmed: 34941289
Psychol Health Med. 2007 Jan;12(1):1-6
pubmed: 17129928
Nurs Res Pract. 2012;2012:905934
pubmed: 23213497
Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89
pubmed: 33781348
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Oct;86(10):2339-40
pubmed: 15466749
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 May;50(5):587-92
pubmed: 23159157
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Sep 6;16(1):47
pubmed: 28874150
Palliat Med. 2020 Sep;34(8):976-988
pubmed: 32538311
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Nov 21;14:579
pubmed: 25413154
Health Policy Plan. 2016 Feb;31(1):10-20
pubmed: 25820367
J Clin Nurs. 2006 Aug;15(8):1007-15
pubmed: 16879545
BMC Nurs. 2021 Nov 6;20(1):220
pubmed: 34742289
Rural Remote Health. 2014;14(3):2721
pubmed: 25160873
Digit Health. 2017 Aug 30;3:2055207617728186
pubmed: 29942611
Nurse Educ Today. 2014 Mar;34(3):319-24
pubmed: 23838295
Pediatrics. 2019 Apr;143(4):
pubmed: 30846617
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2020 Dec;49:101844
pubmed: 33166924
J Med Ethics. 2020 Aug;46(8):510-513
pubmed: 32546658
Can J Psychiatry. 2019 Oct;64(10):669-679
pubmed: 31046432
BMJ. 2014 Mar 26;348:g2225
pubmed: 24671966
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21(2):117-22
pubmed: 16336618
Psychiatry. 1992 Aug;55(3):223-9
pubmed: 1509010
Nurs Manage. 2020 Dec;51(12):14-21
pubmed: 33306572
Qual Health Res. 2020 Dec;30(14):2303-2315
pubmed: 32924863
Integr Med Res. 2016 Jun;5(2):105-109
pubmed: 28462104
Malays J Med Sci. 2021 Oct;28(5):137-141
pubmed: 35115896
Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2015 Oct;24(5):435-45
pubmed: 24992284
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 May;28(5):645-51
pubmed: 23225219
BMJ. 2019 Jun 25;365:l4391
pubmed: 31239253
Patient Educ Couns. 2003 Oct;51(2):149-53
pubmed: 14572944
Front Psychol. 2015 Apr 21;6:470
pubmed: 25954227
BMJ. 2000 Apr 8;320(7240):998-1001
pubmed: 10753159
J Family Med Prim Care. 2016 Jan-Mar;5(1):94-100
pubmed: 27453851
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jan 05;19(1):
pubmed: 35010828
PLoS One. 2019 Dec 13;14(12):e0226201
pubmed: 31834902