RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Health service improvement using positive patient feedback: systematic review and change model
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.09.10.22279800
DO 10.1101/2022.09.10.22279800
A1 Lloyd, Rebecca
A1 Munro, James
A1 Evans, Kerry
A1 Gaskin-Williams, Amy
A1 Hui, Ada
A1 Pearson, Mark
A1 Slade, Mike
A1 Kotera, Yasuhiro
A1 Day, Giskin
A1 Loughlin-Ridley, Joanne
A1 Enston, Clare
A1 Rennick-Egglestone, Stefan
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/14/2022.09.10.22279800.abstract
AB Background Patients, families, and communities regularly provide feedback about care and treatment received from healthcare services, most of which is positive. The aim of this review was to examine how positive feedback creates change within healthcare settings.Methods Included documents were empirical studies where the full text is publicly available in English, and where a change has occurred within healthcare services attributed to positive feedback from service users, their families, or the community. They were identified through database searches (ACM Digital Library, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO), forwards and backwards citation, and expert consultation. Data was synthesised into a change model describing forms, mediators and moderators of change. A protocol was prospectively registered: https://osf.io/5x46c.Results Sixty-eight papers were included, describing research conducted in 32 countries across six continents, with qualitative (n=51), quantitative (n=10), and mixed (n=7) methods. Only two described interventional studies. The most common form of feedback was ‘appreciation’ (n=28). The most common recipients were nurses (n=29). Positive feedback was most commonly given in hospitals (n=27) and community healthcare (n=19). Positive feedback mostly led to positive outcomes 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), and (c) work-related change for healthcare workers (such as improved performance and staff retention). Undesirable changes included embarrassment when receiving feedback, tension in the patient-professional relationship, and envy when not receiving positive feedback.Conclusion Positive feedback can provide the opportunity to create meaningful health service change. Healthcare managers may wish to use positive feedback more regularly, and to identify and address barriers to staff receiving feedback. Further interventional research is required to establish the effectiveness of receiving positive feedback in creating change, and to understand the influence of feedback content.Competing Interest StatementI have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript 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. Amy Gaskin-Williams holds 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), an organisation which leads the National Health Service (NHS) in England and drives continuous improvement in patients experience. NHSE oversees a number of feedback mechanisms which can support health service improvement work. Clare Enston holds a salaried role as Deputy Director ? Insight and Feedback with NHS England (NHSE), an organisation which leads the National Health Service (NHS) in England and drives continuous improvement in patients experience. NHSE oversees a number of feedback mechanisms which can support health service improvement work.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/5x46c Funding StatementWork in this paper was supported by a grant from NHS England and NHS Improvement. This was received by SRE, AGM and JM. There is no grant number for this award. Work was funded in part by the Wellcome Trust (Grant no. 212792/Z/18/Z to GD). MS acknowledges the support of the NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre. The funders had no role in study design data collection analysis decision to publish. Funder’s representatives provided guidance on the interpretation of results during preparation of the manuscript (JLR and CE). As declared in the competing interests section, JM received salary support from Care Opinion CIC.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:No ethical approvals were required, as this is a systematic review.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicableAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.