Emergency care and the patient experience: Using sentiment analysis and topic modeling to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

What is measured matters: A scoping review of analysis methods used for qualitative patient reported experience measure data

INTRODUCTION

Hospitals are increasingly turning to patients for valuable feedback regarding their care experience. A common method to collect this information is patient reported experience measures (PREMs) surveys. Health care workers report qualitative PREMs as more interesting, relevant, and informative than quantitative survey responses. However, a major barrier to utilising qualitative PREMs data to drive quality improvements is a lack of resources to analyse the data. This scoping review aimed to review the methods used to analyse qualitative PREMs survey data from routine hospital care.

METHODS

We utilised the JBI scoping review methodology, and searched four databases for articles from 2013 to 2023 which analysed qualitative PREMs survey data from routine care in hospitals. Study characteristics were extracted, as well as the analysis method - specifically, whether the study used traditional manual analysis methods in which the researcher reads the text and categorise the data, or automated methods utilising computers and algorithms to read and categorise the data.

RESULTS

From 960 unique articles, 123 went through full-text review and 54 were deemed eligible. 75.9 % used only manual content analysis methods to analyse the qualitative responses, 16.7 % of studies used a combination of manual and automated methods, and only 7.4 % used exclusively automated methods. Automated methods were used in 27.5 % of studies published 2019-2023, compared to 14.3 % of studies published 2013-2018. All bar one study using automated methods focused on investigating the validity of the automated methodology or used it to complement manual content analysis.

CONCLUSION

The studies included in this review show a transition from traditional time-consuming manual analyses to computerised methods enabling analysis at a larger scale. As the volume of PREMs data collected grows, efficient and effective ways to analyse qualitative PREMs data at scale are required to enable health services to capture the patient voice and drive consumer-centred improvements in care.

Application of Patient Sentiment Analysis to Evaluate Glaucoma Care

PURPOSE

Patients utilize online physician reviews to decide between and rate ophthalmologists. Sentiment analysis allows for better understanding of patient experiences. In this study, Valence Aware Dictionary sEntiment Reasoner (VADER) and word frequency analysis of glaucoma specialist Healthgrades reviews were used to determine factors prioritized by patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

N/A.

METHODS

Written reviews and Star ratings of glaucoma specialists listed under the Physicians Payments Sunshine Acts were obtained, and demographic information was collected. Valence Aware Dictionary sEntiment Reasoner produced Negative, Neutral, Positive, and Compound scores of reviews, and these were stratified by demographic variables. Word frequency review was applied to determine popular words and phrases.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Star ratings, VADER Compound score of written reviews, and highest word frequencies.

RESULTS

A total of 203 glaucoma specialists and 3531 written reviews were assessed. Glaucoma specialists had an average of 4.26/5 stars, with a mean of 30 ratings per physician on Healthgrades. Most physicians (86%) had overall Positive written reviews (VADER = 0.74), indicating high patient satisfaction. Specialists who were women or had fewer years of practice had higher Compound and Star scores than their respective male and senior counterparts, with statistical significance observed between junior and senior physician Stars (P < 0.001). Repeated words pertaining to the surgery, staff, wait times, and questions were common overall and among the most positive and most negative reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Glaucoma specialist patients value nonclinical factors, such as appointment setting and nonphysician health-care staff members, in their written reviews. Thus, factors beyond clinical outcomes are influential in the overall patient experience and should be considered to improve health-care delivery. These results can also advise ophthalmologists on factors that patients prioritize when evaluating physicians, which influences the decisions of other patients seeking glaucoma care.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient complaints within one Irish teaching hospital

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically impacted the delivery of hospital care in terms of quality and safety.

OBJECTIVES

To examine complaints from two time points, quarter 4 (Q4) 2019 (pre-pandemic) and Q4 2020 (second wave), and explore whether there was a difference in the frequency and/or content of complaints.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of complaints from one Irish hospital was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT). Within each complaint, the content, severity, harm reported by the patient, and stage of care were categorised. The complaints were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of independence.

RESULTS

There were 146 complaints received in Q4 2019 and 114 in Q4 2020. Complaint severity was significantly higher in Q4 2019 as compared to Q4 2020. However, there were no other significant differences. Institutional processes (e.g. staffing, resources) were the most common reason for complaints (30% in Q4 2019 and 36% in Q4 2020). The majority of complaints were concerned with care on the ward (23% in Q4 2019 and 31% in Q4 2020).

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of complaints was significantly higher in Q4 2019 than in Q4 2020, which requires further exploration as the reasons for this are unclear. The lack of a difference in the frequency and content of complaints during the two time periods was unexpected. However, this may be linked to a number of factors, including public support for the healthcare system, existing system-level issues in the hospital, or indeed increased staff collaboration in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.