“The final arbiter of everything”: a genealogy of concern with patient experience in Britain

Not just surveys and indicators: narratives capture what really matters for health system strengthening

Health system strengthening remains elusive and challenging. Health systems in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa are frequently characterised as weak, with inadequate management and accountability mechanisms, and poor human and financial resources. Putting patients and staff at the heart of health systems is an essential step towards strengthening them. As one of the three pillars of quality in health care, understanding patient experiences is key to moving towards people-centred care. Yet patient experiences are not a singular concept. Patient narratives can convey individual experiences of illness and health care, which complement and augment epidemiological and public health evidence. These narratives, gathered with rigorous, interview-based research and shared with digital tools (audio and video), can generate persuasive evidence. This evidence has important potential for influencing policy and practice, and for supporting people-centred care, but has not been tested systematically in low-income countries. In the Kenyan context of newborn health, work under way is generating evidence to show the transformative potential of patient narratives.

To what extent are patients involved in researching safety in acute mental healthcare?

BACKGROUND

There is a growing need to involve patients in the development of patient safety interventions. Mental health services, despite their strong history of patient involvement, have been slow to develop patient safety interventions, particularly in inpatient settings.

METHODS

A systematic search was undertaken of both academic and grey literature. Whilst no lay member of the team worked directly on the review, they were part of the project steering group which provided oversight throughout the review process. This included people with lived experience of mental health services. From a research perspective the main focus for lay members was in co-producing the digital technology, the key project output. Smits et al.'s (Res Involv Engagem 6:1-30, 2020) Involvement Matrix was used to taxonomise levels of patient involvement. Studies were included if they were set in any inpatient mental health care context regardless of design. The quality of all selected studies was appraised using Mixed Methods Appraisal Methodology (MMAT).

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were classified, synthesised and their levels of patient involvement in the research and development of patient safety interventions were taxonomised. Almost two-thirds of studies (n = 33) researched reducing restrictive practices. Only four studies reported engaging patients in the research process as decision-makers, with the remaining studies divided almost equally between engaging patients in the research process as partners, advisors and co-thinkers. Just under half of all studies engaged patients in just one stage of the research process.

CONCLUSION

Involvement of patients in researching patient safety and developing interventions in an inpatient mental health context seems diverse in its nature. Researchers need to both more fully consider and better describe their approaches to involving patients in safety research in inpatient mental health. Doing so will likely lead to the development of higher quality safety interventions.

Towards a feminist philosophy of engagements in health-related research

Engagement with publics, patients, and stakeholders is an important part of the health research environment today,and different modalities of 'engaged' health research have proliferated in recent years. Yet, th ere is no consensus on what, exactly, 'engaging' means, what it should look like, and what the aims, justifications, or motivations for it should be. In this paper, we set out what we see as important, outstanding challenges around the practice and theory of engaging and consider the tensions and possibilities that the diverse landscape of engaging evokes. We examine the roots, present modalities and institutional frameworks that have been erected around engaging, including how they shape and delimit how engagements are framed, enacted, and justified. We inspect the related issue of knowledge production within and through engagements, addressing whether engagements can, or should, be framed as knowledge producing activities. We then unpack the question of how engagements are or could be valued and evaluated, emphasising the plural ways in which 'value' can be conceptualised and generated. We conclude by calling for a philosophy of engagements that can capture the diversity of related practices, concepts and justifications around engagements, and account for the plurality of knowledges and value that engagements engender, while remaining flexible and attentive to the structural conditions under which engagements occur. Such philosophy should be a feminist one, informed by feminist epistemological and methodological approaches to equitable modes of research participation, knowledge production, and valuing. Especially, translating feminist tools of reflexivity and positionalityinto the sphere of engagements can enable a synergy of empirical, epistemic and normative considerations in developing accounts of engaging in both theory and praxis. Modestly, here, we hope to carve out the starting points for this work.

Turning the gaze: Digital patient feedback and the silent pathology of the NHS

Online review and rating sites, where patients can leave feedback on their experience of the health-care encounter, are becoming an increasing feature of primary care in the NHS. Previous research has analysed how digital surveillance is re-shaping the clinical gaze, as health-care professionals are subject to increased public monitoring. Here, we draw on an empirical study of 41 GP practice staff to show how the gaze is turning, not simply from the patient to the health-care provider, but additionally to the body politic of the NHS. Drawing on focus group and interview data conducted in five UK practices, we show how discourses of online reviews and ratings are producing new professional subjectivities among health-care professionals and the extent to which the gaze extends not only to individual health-care interactions but to the health-care service writ large. We identify three counter-discourses characterising the evolving ways in which online reviews and ratings are creating new subjects in primary care practices: victimhood, prosumption versus traditional values and taking control. We show how the ways in which staff speak about online feedback are patterned by the social environment in which they work and the constraints of the NHS they encounter on a day-to-day basis.

Systemic safety inequities for people with learning disabilities: a qualitative integrative analysis of the experiences of English health and social care for people with learning disabilities, their families and carers

BACKGROUND

Failures in care for people with learning disabilities have been repeatedly highlighted and remain an international issue, exemplified by a disparity in premature death due to poor quality and unsafe care. This needs urgent attention. Therefore, the aim of the study was to understand the care experiences of people with learning disabilities, and explore the potential patient safety issues they, their carers and families raised.

METHODS

Two data sources exploring the lived experience of care for people with learning disabilities were synthesised using an integrative approach, and explored using reflexive thematic analysis. This comprised two focus groups with a total of 13 people with learning disabilities and supportive staff, and 377 narratives posted publicly via the feedback platform Care Opinion.

RESULTS

The qualitative exploration highlighted three key themes. Firstly, health and social care systems operated with varying levels of rigidity. This contributed to an inability to effectively cater to; complex and individualised care needs, written and verbal communication needs and needs for adequate time and space. Secondly, there were various gaps and traps within systems for this population. This highlighted the importance of care continuity, interoperability and attending to the variation in support provision from professionals. Finally, essential 'dependency work' was reliant upon social capital and fulfilled by paid and unpaid caring roles to divergent extents, however, advocacy provided an additional supportive safety net.

CONCLUSIONS

A series of safety inequities have been identified for people with learning disabilities, alongside potential protective buffers. These include; access to social support and advocacy, a malleable system able to accommodate for individualised care and communication needs, adequate staffing levels, sufficient learning disabilities expertise within and between care settings, and the interoperability of safety initiatives. In order to attend to the safety inequities for this population, these factors need to be considered at a policy and organisational level, spanning across health and social care systems. Findings have wide ranging implications for those with learning disabilities, their carers and families and health and social care providers, with the potential for international learning more widely.

Patient experience data as enacted: Sociomaterial perspectives and 'singular-multiples' in health care quality improvement research

Over the last three decades, sociomaterial approaches to the study of health care practices have made an important contribution to the sociology of health care. Significant attention has been paid to the role of technology and artefacts in health care and the operation of actor-networks but less space has been given to questions of ontological multiplicity in health care practices. In this paper, we draw upon our study of patient experience data in five acute hospitals in England to illustrate how treating patient experience data as 'singular-multiples' can enable useful insights into patient experience data work in health care organisations. Our data was generated during 12 months of fieldwork at five participating hospitals and included organisational documents, field notes, informal and formal interviews with frontline and managerial staff and patient representatives at the study sites. We use the examples of the Friends and Family Test (FFT) and the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES) in England to consider the multiple nature of data as it is enacted in practice and the work data does when coordinated as an entity in the singular. We argue that, and discuss how, the sociomaterial insights we discuss here are relevant to health care quality and improvement research and practice.

Wild data: how front-line hospital staff make sense of patients' experiences

Patient-centred care has become the touchstone of healthcare policy in developed healthcare systems. The ensuing commodification of patients' experiences has resulted in a mass of data but little sense of whether and how such data are used. We sought to understand how front-line staff use patient experience data for quality improvement in the National Health Service (NHS). We conducted a 12-month ethnographic case study evaluation of improvement projects in six NHS hospitals in England in 2016-2017. Drawing on the sociology of everyday life, we show how front-line staff worked with a notion of data as interpersonal and embodied. In addition to consulting organisationally sanctioned forms of data, staff used their own embodied interactions with patients, carers, other staff and the ward environment to shape improvements. The data staff found useful involved face-to-face interaction and dialogue; were visual, emotive, and allowed for immediate action. We draw on de Certeau to re-conceptualise this as 'wild data'. We conclude that patient experience data are relational, and have material, social and affective dimensions, which have been elided in the literature to date. Practice-based theories of the everyday help to envision 'patient experience' not as a disembodied tool of managerialism but as an embedded part of healthcare staff professionalism.

Anonymity, veracity and power in online patient feedback: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of staff responses to patient comments on the 'Care Opinion' platform in Scotland

OBJECTIVE

To analyse how staff in one Scottish hospital respond to anonymised patient feedback posted on the nationally endorsed feedback platform Care Opinion; and to understand staff experiences of, and attitudes towards, engaging with Care Opinion data.

METHODS

This was a multi-method study comprising: (a) numerical and thematic analysis of stories posted during a six-month period, using a published framework; (b) thematic analysis of interviews with a range of 10 hospital staff responsible for organisational responses to feedback.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven stories were published during the six-month period. All received a response, with a mean response time of 3.9 days. Ninety-six responses were made in total, from 20 staff members. Personalisation and tailoring was mostly assessed as performing well against the published framework. Only two 'changes made' were reported. While staff interviewed were mostly understanding of why patients might prefer giving anonymised feedback, some found it uncomfortable and challenging. Participants described instances where they might seek to de-anonymise the individual, in order to pass on personal thanks to the relevant staff member, or to investigate the issue raised and seek resolution offline. Patients did not always want to identify themselves; this could sometimes lead staff to query the veracity or importance of issues raised. Sometimes staff could identify individuals anyway, including one described as 'our regular person'.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff used to engaging directly with patients and families, both clinically and in dealing with feedback, need support in dealing with anonymous feedback, and the uncomfortable situation of unequal power it may create.

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 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.