Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study
Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation t...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
John Powell [verfasserIn] Helen Atherton [verfasserIn] Veronika Williams [verfasserIn] Fadhila Mazanderani [verfasserIn] Farzana Dudhwala [verfasserIn] Steve Woolgar [verfasserIn] Anne-Marie Boylan [verfasserIn] Joanna Fleming [verfasserIn] Susan Kirkpatrick [verfasserIn] Angela Martin [verfasserIn] Michelle van Velthoven [verfasserIn] Anya de Iongh [verfasserIn] Douglas Findlay [verfasserIn] Louise Locock [verfasserIn] Sue Ziebland [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Health Services and Delivery Research - National Institute for Health Research, 2017, 7(2019), 38 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:7 ; year:2019 ; number:38 |
| Links: |
Link aufrufen |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.3310/hsdr07380 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
DOAJ078037964 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ078037964 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502215823.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230228s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3310/hsdr07380 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ078037964 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 050 | 0 | |a RA1-1270 | |
| 050 | 0 | |a R5-920 | |
| 100 | 0 | |a John Powell |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a digital health | |
| 650 | 4 | |a e-health | |
| 650 | 4 | |a internet | |
| 650 | 4 | |a patient experience | |
| 650 | 4 | |a quality improvement | |
| 650 | 4 | |a literature review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a survey | |
| 650 | 4 | |a interviews | |
| 650 | 4 | |a ethnography | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Public aspects of medicine | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Medicine (General) | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Helen Atherton |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Veronika Williams |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Fadhila Mazanderani |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Farzana Dudhwala |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Steve Woolgar |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Anne-Marie Boylan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Joanna Fleming |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Susan Kirkpatrick |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Angela Martin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Michelle van Velthoven |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Anya de Iongh |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Douglas Findlay |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Louise Locock |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Sue Ziebland |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Health Services and Delivery Research |d National Institute for Health Research, 2017 |g 7(2019), 38 |w (DE-627)1760647098 |x 20504357 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:7 |g year:2019 |g number:38 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_31 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 7 |j 2019 |e 38 | ||
| author_variant |
j p jp h a ha v w vw f m fm f d fd s w sw a m b amb j f jf s k sk a m am m v v mvv a d i adi d f df l l ll s z sz |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:20504357:2019----::snolnptetedakomrvnsevcshiqi |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2019 |
| callnumber-subject-code |
RA |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| allfields |
10.3310/hsdr07380 doi (DE-627)DOAJ078037964 (DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RA1-1270 R5-920 John Powell verfasserin aut Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. digital health e-health internet patient experience quality improvement literature review survey interviews ethnography Public aspects of medicine Medicine (General) Helen Atherton verfasserin aut Veronika Williams verfasserin aut Fadhila Mazanderani verfasserin aut Farzana Dudhwala verfasserin aut Steve Woolgar verfasserin aut Anne-Marie Boylan verfasserin aut Joanna Fleming verfasserin aut Susan Kirkpatrick verfasserin aut Angela Martin verfasserin aut Michelle van Velthoven verfasserin aut Anya de Iongh verfasserin aut Douglas Findlay verfasserin aut Louise Locock verfasserin aut Sue Ziebland verfasserin aut In Health Services and Delivery Research National Institute for Health Research, 2017 7(2019), 38 (DE-627)1760647098 20504357 nnns volume:7 year:2019 number:38 https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2019 38 |
| spelling |
10.3310/hsdr07380 doi (DE-627)DOAJ078037964 (DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RA1-1270 R5-920 John Powell verfasserin aut Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. digital health e-health internet patient experience quality improvement literature review survey interviews ethnography Public aspects of medicine Medicine (General) Helen Atherton verfasserin aut Veronika Williams verfasserin aut Fadhila Mazanderani verfasserin aut Farzana Dudhwala verfasserin aut Steve Woolgar verfasserin aut Anne-Marie Boylan verfasserin aut Joanna Fleming verfasserin aut Susan Kirkpatrick verfasserin aut Angela Martin verfasserin aut Michelle van Velthoven verfasserin aut Anya de Iongh verfasserin aut Douglas Findlay verfasserin aut Louise Locock verfasserin aut Sue Ziebland verfasserin aut In Health Services and Delivery Research National Institute for Health Research, 2017 7(2019), 38 (DE-627)1760647098 20504357 nnns volume:7 year:2019 number:38 https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2019 38 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.3310/hsdr07380 doi (DE-627)DOAJ078037964 (DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RA1-1270 R5-920 John Powell verfasserin aut Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. digital health e-health internet patient experience quality improvement literature review survey interviews ethnography Public aspects of medicine Medicine (General) Helen Atherton verfasserin aut Veronika Williams verfasserin aut Fadhila Mazanderani verfasserin aut Farzana Dudhwala verfasserin aut Steve Woolgar verfasserin aut Anne-Marie Boylan verfasserin aut Joanna Fleming verfasserin aut Susan Kirkpatrick verfasserin aut Angela Martin verfasserin aut Michelle van Velthoven verfasserin aut Anya de Iongh verfasserin aut Douglas Findlay verfasserin aut Louise Locock verfasserin aut Sue Ziebland verfasserin aut In Health Services and Delivery Research National Institute for Health Research, 2017 7(2019), 38 (DE-627)1760647098 20504357 nnns volume:7 year:2019 number:38 https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2019 38 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.3310/hsdr07380 doi (DE-627)DOAJ078037964 (DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RA1-1270 R5-920 John Powell verfasserin aut Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. digital health e-health internet patient experience quality improvement literature review survey interviews ethnography Public aspects of medicine Medicine (General) Helen Atherton verfasserin aut Veronika Williams verfasserin aut Fadhila Mazanderani verfasserin aut Farzana Dudhwala verfasserin aut Steve Woolgar verfasserin aut Anne-Marie Boylan verfasserin aut Joanna Fleming verfasserin aut Susan Kirkpatrick verfasserin aut Angela Martin verfasserin aut Michelle van Velthoven verfasserin aut Anya de Iongh verfasserin aut Douglas Findlay verfasserin aut Louise Locock verfasserin aut Sue Ziebland verfasserin aut In Health Services and Delivery Research National Institute for Health Research, 2017 7(2019), 38 (DE-627)1760647098 20504357 nnns volume:7 year:2019 number:38 https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2019 38 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.3310/hsdr07380 doi (DE-627)DOAJ078037964 (DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RA1-1270 R5-920 John Powell verfasserin aut Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study 2019 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. digital health e-health internet patient experience quality improvement literature review survey interviews ethnography Public aspects of medicine Medicine (General) Helen Atherton verfasserin aut Veronika Williams verfasserin aut Fadhila Mazanderani verfasserin aut Farzana Dudhwala verfasserin aut Steve Woolgar verfasserin aut Anne-Marie Boylan verfasserin aut Joanna Fleming verfasserin aut Susan Kirkpatrick verfasserin aut Angela Martin verfasserin aut Michelle van Velthoven verfasserin aut Anya de Iongh verfasserin aut Douglas Findlay verfasserin aut Louise Locock verfasserin aut Sue Ziebland verfasserin aut In Health Services and Delivery Research National Institute for Health Research, 2017 7(2019), 38 (DE-627)1760647098 20504357 nnns volume:7 year:2019 number:38 https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349 Journal toc kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 7 2019 38 |
| language |
English |
| source |
In Health Services and Delivery Research 7(2019), 38 volume:7 year:2019 number:38 |
| sourceStr |
In Health Services and Delivery Research 7(2019), 38 volume:7 year:2019 number:38 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
digital health e-health internet patient experience quality improvement literature review survey interviews ethnography Public aspects of medicine Medicine (General) |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
| container_title |
Health Services and Delivery Research |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
John Powell @@aut@@ Helen Atherton @@aut@@ Veronika Williams @@aut@@ Fadhila Mazanderani @@aut@@ Farzana Dudhwala @@aut@@ Steve Woolgar @@aut@@ Anne-Marie Boylan @@aut@@ Joanna Fleming @@aut@@ Susan Kirkpatrick @@aut@@ Angela Martin @@aut@@ Michelle van Velthoven @@aut@@ Anya de Iongh @@aut@@ Douglas Findlay @@aut@@ Louise Locock @@aut@@ Sue Ziebland @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
1760647098 |
| id |
DOAJ078037964 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ078037964</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502215823.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3310/hsdr07380</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ078037964</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RA1-1270</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Powell</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">digital health</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">e-health</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">internet</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient experience</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality improvement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">literature review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">survey</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">interviews</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ethnography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Public aspects of medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Helen Atherton</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Veronika Williams</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fadhila Mazanderani</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Farzana Dudhwala</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Steve Woolgar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anne-Marie Boylan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joanna Fleming</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Susan Kirkpatrick</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Angela Martin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Michelle van Velthoven</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anya de Iongh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Douglas Findlay</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Louise Locock</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sue Ziebland</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Health Services and Delivery Research</subfield><subfield code="d">National Institute for Health Research, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2019), 38</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760647098</subfield><subfield code="x">20504357</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:38</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">38</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| callnumber-first |
R - Medicine |
| author |
John Powell |
| spellingShingle |
John Powell misc RA1-1270 misc R5-920 misc digital health misc e-health misc internet misc patient experience misc quality improvement misc literature review misc survey misc interviews misc ethnography misc Public aspects of medicine misc Medicine (General) Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study |
| authorStr |
John Powell |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)1760647098 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
DOAJ |
| remote_str |
true |
| callnumber-label |
RA1-1270 |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
20504357 |
| topic_title |
RA1-1270 R5-920 Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study digital health e-health internet patient experience quality improvement literature review survey interviews ethnography |
| topic |
misc RA1-1270 misc R5-920 misc digital health misc e-health misc internet misc patient experience misc quality improvement misc literature review misc survey misc interviews misc ethnography misc Public aspects of medicine misc Medicine (General) |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc RA1-1270 misc R5-920 misc digital health misc e-health misc internet misc patient experience misc quality improvement misc literature review misc survey misc interviews misc ethnography misc Public aspects of medicine misc Medicine (General) |
| topic_browse |
misc RA1-1270 misc R5-920 misc digital health misc e-health misc internet misc patient experience misc quality improvement misc literature review misc survey misc interviews misc ethnography misc Public aspects of medicine misc Medicine (General) |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Health Services and Delivery Research |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
1760647098 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Health Services and Delivery Research |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)1760647098 |
| title |
Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)DOAJ078037964 (DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd |
| title_full |
Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study |
| author_sort |
John Powell |
| journal |
Health Services and Delivery Research |
| journalStr |
Health Services and Delivery Research |
| callnumber-first-code |
R |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
true |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| author_browse |
John Powell Helen Atherton Veronika Williams Fadhila Mazanderani Farzana Dudhwala Steve Woolgar Anne-Marie Boylan Joanna Fleming Susan Kirkpatrick Angela Martin Michelle van Velthoven Anya de Iongh Douglas Findlay Louise Locock Sue Ziebland |
| container_volume |
7 |
| class |
RA1-1270 R5-920 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
John Powell |
| doi_str_mv |
10.3310/hsdr07380 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
using online patient feedback to improve nhs services: the inquire multimethod study |
| callnumber |
RA1-1270 |
| title_auth |
Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study |
| abstract |
Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. |
| abstractGer |
Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
| container_issue |
38 |
| title_short |
Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380 https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349 https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Helen Atherton Veronika Williams Fadhila Mazanderani Farzana Dudhwala Steve Woolgar Anne-Marie Boylan Joanna Fleming Susan Kirkpatrick Angela Martin Michelle van Velthoven Anya de Iongh Douglas Findlay Louise Locock Sue Ziebland |
| author2Str |
Helen Atherton Veronika Williams Fadhila Mazanderani Farzana Dudhwala Steve Woolgar Anne-Marie Boylan Joanna Fleming Susan Kirkpatrick Angela Martin Michelle van Velthoven Anya de Iongh Douglas Findlay Louise Locock Sue Ziebland |
| ppnlink |
1760647098 |
| callnumber-subject |
RA - Public Medicine |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
true |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.3310/hsdr07380 |
| callnumber-a |
RA1-1270 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:35:26.038Z |
| _version_ |
1803572662544367616 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ078037964</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502215823.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3310/hsdr07380</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ078037964</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJc4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RA1-1270</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R5-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">John Powell</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background: Online customer feedback has become routine in many industries, but it has yet to be harnessed for service improvement in health care. Objectives: To identify the current evidence on online patient feedback; to identify public and health professional attitudes and behaviour in relation to online patient feedback; to explore the experiences of patients in providing online feedback to the NHS; and to examine the practices and processes of online patient feedback within NHS trusts. Design: A multimethod programme of five studies: (1) evidence synthesis and stakeholder consultation; (2) questionnaire survey of the public; (3) qualitative study of patients’ and carers’ experiences of creating and using online comment; (4) questionnaire surveys and a focus group of health-care professionals; and (5) ethnographic organisational case studies with four NHS secondary care provider organisations. Setting: The UK. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases and conducted hand-searches to January 2018. Synthesis was guided by themes arising from consultation with 15 stakeholders. We conducted a face-to-face survey of a representative sample of the UK population (n = 2036) and 37 purposively sampled qualitative semistructured interviews with people with experience of online feedback. We conducted online surveys of 1001 quota-sampled doctors and 749 nurses or midwives, and a focus group with five allied health professionals. We conducted ethnographic case studies at four NHS trusts, with a researcher spending 6–10 weeks at each site. Results: Many people (42% of internet users in the general population) read online feedback from other patients. Fewer people (8%) write online feedback, but when they do one of their main reasons is to give praise. Most online feedback is positive in its tone and people describe caring about the NHS and wanting to help it (‘caring for care’). They also want their feedback to elicit a response as part of a conversation. Many professionals, especially doctors, are cautious about online feedback, believing it to be mainly critical and unrepresentative, and rarely encourage it. From a NHS trust perspective, online patient feedback is creating new forms of response-ability (organisations needing the infrastructure to address multiple channels and increasing amounts of online feedback) and responsivity (ensuring responses are swift and publicly visible). Limitations: This work provides only a cross-sectional snapshot of a fast-emerging phenomenon. Questionnaire surveys can be limited by response bias. The quota sample of doctors and volunteer sample of nurses may not be representative. The ethnographic work was limited in its interrogation of differences between sites. Conclusions: Providing and using online feedback are becoming more common for patients who are often motivated to give praise and to help the NHS improve, but health organisations and professionals are cautious and not fully prepared to use online feedback for service improvement. We identified several disconnections between patient motivations and staff and organisational perspectives, which will need to be resolved if NHS services are to engage with this source of constructive criticism and commentary from patients. Future work: Intervention studies could measure online feedback as an intervention for service improvement and longitudinal studies could examine use over time, including unanticipated consequences. Content analyses could look for new knowledge on specific tests or treatments. Methodological work is needed to identify the best approaches to analysing feedback. Study registration: The ethnographic case study work was registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33095169. Funding: This project was funded by the National institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">digital health</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">e-health</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">internet</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">patient experience</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">quality improvement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">literature review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">survey</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">interviews</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">ethnography</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Public aspects of medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Helen Atherton</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Veronika Williams</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fadhila Mazanderani</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Farzana Dudhwala</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Steve Woolgar</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anne-Marie Boylan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Joanna Fleming</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Susan Kirkpatrick</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Angela Martin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Michelle van Velthoven</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Anya de Iongh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Douglas Findlay</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Louise Locock</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sue Ziebland</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Health Services and Delivery Research</subfield><subfield code="d">National Institute for Health Research, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">7(2019), 38</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)1760647098</subfield><subfield code="x">20504357</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:7</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:38</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/c4f021c8f1ca4e70a92aadba1f6009cd</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07380</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4349</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2050-4357</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">7</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">38</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4009905 |