Healthcare professional and patient codesign and validation of a mechanism for service users to feedback patient safety experiences following a care transfer: a qualitative study

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Co-designing a community pharmacy pharmacogenomics testing service in the UK

Introduction

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing services have been delivered through community pharmacies across the globe, though not yet in the UK. This paper is reporting a focus group study, the first stage of a participatory co-design process to increase the chance of a successful implementation of a PGx service through community pharmacy in the UK.

Aim

To identify the barriers and enablers to implementing a community pharmacy based PGx service in the UK.

Method

Three focus groups were conducted with community pharmacists (n = 10), prescribers (n = 8) and patients (n = 8) in England. The focus groups were recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed using the Braun and Clarke six phase reflexive thematic analysis approach.

Results

The analysis identified five themes about PGx testing in community pharmacies: (1) In- principle receptiveness, (2) Appreciation of the benefits, (3) Lack of implementation resources (4) Ambiguity about implications for implementation and (5) Interprofessional relationship challenges.

Conclusion

The identified enablers for implementation of a PGx service were at a macro health system strategic level; the concerns were more at a granular operational procedural level. Overall receptiveness was noted by all three participant groups, and both prescriber and pharmacist groups appreciated the potential benefits for patients and the healthcare system. Prior to implementation in the UK, there is a need to disambiguate health professional’s concerns of the guidance, resources, and knowledge required to set up and deliver the service and to resolve patient concerns about the nature of genomics.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07730-y.

Residents transitioning between hospital and care homes: protocol for codesigning a systems-level response to safety issues (SafeST study)

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study is to develop a better understanding of incident reporting in relation to transitions in care between hospital and care home, and to codesign a systems-level response to safety issues for patients transitioning between hospital and care home.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Two workstreams (W) will run in parallel. W1 will aim to develop a taxonomy of incident reporting in care homes, underpinned by structured interviews (N=150) with care home representatives, scoping review of care home incident reporting systems, and a review of incident reporting policy related to care homes. The taxonomy will be developed using a standardised approach to taxonomy development. W2 will be structured in three phases (P). P1a will consist of ≤40 interviews with care home staff to develop a better understanding of their specific internal systems for reporting incidents, and P1b will include ≤30 interviews with others involved in transitions between hospital and care home. P1a and P1b will also examine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on safe transitions. P2 will consist of a retrospective documentary analysis of care home data relating to resident transitions, with data size and sampling determined based on data sources identified in P1a. A validated data extraction form will be adapted before use. P3 will consist of four validation and codesign workshops to develop a service specification using National Health Service Improvement's service specification framework, which will then be mapped against existing systems and recommendations produced. Framework analysis informed by the heuristic of systemic risk factors will be the primary mode of analysis, with content analysis used for analysing incident reports.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received university ethical approval and Health Research Authority approval. Findings will be disseminated to commissioners, providers and regulators who will be able to use the codesigned service specification to improve integrated care.

A Systematic Review of Patient-Report Safety Climate Measures in Health Care

OBJECTIVES

Patients are a valuable, yet underutilized source of information for safety measurement and improvement in health care. The aim of this review was to identify patient-report safety climate (SC) measures described in the literature, analyze the included items to consider their alignment with previously established SC domains, evaluate their validity and reliability, and make recommendations for best practice in using patient-report measures of SC in health care.

METHODS

Searches were conducted, with no limit on publication year, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Academic Search Complete in November 2019. Reference lists of included studies and existing reviews were also screened. English-language, peer-reviewed studies that described the development or use of a patient-report measure to assess SC in health care were included. Two researchers independently extracted data from studies and applied a quality appraisal tool.

RESULTS

A total of 5060 studies were screened, with 44 included. Included studies described 31 different SC measures. There was much variability in the coverage of SC domains across included measures. Poor measure quality was marked by inadequacies in the testing and reporting of validity and reliability. There was also a lack of usability testing among measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified the extant patient-reported SC measures in health care and demonstrated significant variance in their coverage of SC domains, validity and reliability, and usability. Findings suggest a pressing need for a stand-alone measure that has a high validity and reliability, and assess core SC domains from the patient perspective, particularly in primary care.

Content Analysis of Patient Safety Incident Reports for Older Adult Patient Transfers, Handovers, and Discharges: Do They Serve Organizations, Staff, or Patients?

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyze content of incident reports during patient transitions in the context of care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke.

METHODS

A structured search strategy identified incident reports involving patient transitions (March 2014-August 2014, January 2015-June 2015) within 2 National Health Service Trusts (in upper and lower quartiles of incident reports/100 admissions) in care of older people, cardiology, orthopedics, and stroke. Content analysis identified the following: incident classifications; active failures; latent conditions; patient/relative involvement; and evidence of individual or organizational learning. Reported harm was interpreted with reference to National Reporting and Learning System criteria.

RESULTS

A total 278 incident reports were analyzed. Fourteen incident classifications were identified, with pressure ulcers the modal category (n = 101,36%), followed by falls (n = 32, 12%), medication (n = 31, 11%), and documentation (n = 29, 10%). Half (n = 139, 50%) of incident reports related to interunit/department/team transfers. Latent conditions were explicit in 33 (12%) reports; most frequently, these related to inadequate resources/staff and concomitant time pressures (n = 13). Patient/family involvement was explicit in 61 (22%) reports. Patient well-being was explicit in 24 (9%) reports. Individual and organizational learning was evident in 3% and 7% of reports, respectively. Reported harm was significantly lower than coder-interpreted harm (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Incident report quality was suboptimal for individual and organizational learning. Underreporting level of harm suggests reporter bias, which requires reducing as much as practicable. System-level interventions are warranted to encourage use of staff reflective skills, emphasizing joint ownership of incidents. Co-producing incident reports with other clinicians involved in the transition and patients/relatives could optimize organizational learning.

Assessing and promoting partnership between patients and health-care professionals: Co-construction of the CADICEE tool for patients and their relatives

CONTEXT

Partnership between patients and health-care professionals (HCPs) is a concept that needs a valid, practical measure to facilitate its use by patients and HCPs.

OBJECTIVE

To co-construct a tool for measuring the degree of partnership between patients and HCPs.

DESIGN

The CADICEE tool was developed in four steps: (1) generate key dimensions of patient partnership in clinical care; (2) co-construct the tool; (3) assess face and content validity from patients' and HCPs' viewpoints; and (4) assess the usability of the tool and explore its measurement performance.

RESULTS

The CADICEE tool comprises 24 items under 7 dimensions: 1) relationship of Confidence or trust between the patient and the HCPs; 2) patient Autonomy; 3) patient participation in Decisions related to care; 4) shared Information on patient health status or care; 5) patient personal Context; 6) Empathy; and 7) recognition of Expertise. Assessment of the tool's usability and measurement performance showed, in a convenience sample of 246 patients and relatives, high face validity, acceptability and relevance for both patients and HCPs, as well as good construct validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The CADICEE tool is developed in co-construction with patients to evaluate the degree of partnership in care desired by patients in their relationship with HCPs. The tool can be used in various clinical contexts and in different health-care settings.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients were involved in determining the importance of constructing this questionnaire. They co-constructed it, pre-tested it and were part of the entire questionnaire development process. Three patients participated in the writing of the article.

Health system responsiveness: a systematic evidence mapping review of the global literature

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organisation framed responsiveness, fair financing and equity as intrinsic goals of health systems. However, of the three, responsiveness received significantly less attention. Responsiveness is essential to strengthen systems' functioning; provide equitable and accountable services; and to protect the rights of citizens. There is an urgency to make systems more responsive, but our understanding of responsiveness is limited. We therefore sought to map existing evidence on health system responsiveness.

METHODS

A mixed method systemized evidence mapping review was conducted. We searched PubMed, EbscoHost, and Google Scholar. Published and grey literature; conceptual and empirical publications; published between 2000 and 2020 and English language texts were included. We screened titles and abstracts of 1119 publications and 870 full texts.

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty-one publications were included in the review. Evidence mapping shows substantially more publications between 2011 and 2020 (n = 462/621) than earlier periods. Most of the publications were from Europe (n = 139), with more publications relating to High Income Countries (n = 241) than Low-to-Middle Income Countries (n = 217). Most were empirical studies (n = 424/621) utilized quantitative methodologies (n = 232), while qualitative (n = 127) and mixed methods (n = 63) were more rare. Thematic analysis revealed eight primary conceptualizations of 'health system responsiveness', which can be fitted into three dominant categorizations: 1) unidirectional user-service interface; 2) responsiveness as feedback loops between users and the health system; and 3) responsiveness as accountability between public and the system.

CONCLUSIONS

This evidence map shows a substantial body of available literature on health system responsiveness, but also reveals evidential gaps requiring further development, including: a clear definition and body of theory of responsiveness; the implementation and effectiveness of feedback loops; the systems responses to this feedback; context-specific mechanism-implementation experiences, particularly, of LMIC and fragile-and conflict affected states; and responsiveness as it relates to health equity, minority and vulnerable populations. Theoretical development is required, we suggest separating ideas of services and systems responsiveness, applying a stronger systems lens in future work. Further agenda-setting and resourcing of bridging work on health system responsiveness is suggested.

A governance model for the application of AI in health care

As the efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI) in improving aspects of healthcare delivery is increasingly becoming evident, it becomes likely that AI will be incorporated in routine clinical care in the near future. This promise has led to growing focus and investment in AI medical applications both from governmental organizations and technological companies. However, concern has been expressed about the ethical and regulatory aspects of the application of AI in health care. These concerns include the possibility of biases, lack of transparency with certain AI algorithms, privacy concerns with the data used for training AI models, and safety and liability issues with AI application in clinical environments. While there has been extensive discussion about the ethics of AI in health care, there has been little dialogue or recommendations as to how to practically address these concerns in health care. In this article, we propose a governance model that aims to not only address the ethical and regulatory issues that arise out of the application of AI in health care, but also stimulate further discussion about governance of AI in health care.

Creating a Smartphone App for Caregivers of Children With Atopic Dermatitis With Caregivers, Health Care Professionals, and Digital Health Experts: Participatory Co-Design

Background

Smartphone apps could support patients and caregivers in disease self-management. However, as patients’ experiences and needs might not always align with clinical judgments, the eliciting and engaging of perspectives of all stakeholders in the smartphone app design process is of paramount importance.

Objective

The aims of this study are to better understand the needs of and challenges facing caregivers and health care professionals (HCPs) who care for children with atopic dermatitis (AD) and to explore the desirable features and content of a smartphone app that would support AD self-management.

Methods

This study adopted a qualitative participatory co-design methodology involving 3 focus group discussions: workshop one focused on caregivers; workshop two engaged with HCPs; and in the last workshop, caregivers and digital health experts were asked to design the wireframe prototype. The participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire, a technology acceptance questionnaire, and a workshop evaluation form.

Results

Twelve caregivers participated in the first workshop, and 10 HCPs participated in the second workshop. Eight caregivers and 4 digital health experts attended the third workshop. Three superordinate themes that reflected caregivers’ and HCPs’ challenges and needs were identified: empowerment by education, confusion over treatment, and emotional impact. Workshop participants also raised a series of suggestions on the features and contents of the AD self-management app, which informed the last co-design workshop, and described their needs and challenges. In the last workshop, the participants developed a wireframe prototype of the app following the identified requirements and recommendations.

Conclusions

The co-design approach was found to be a successful way of engaging with the participants, as it allowed them to express their creativity and helped us to articulate the root of the clinical problems. The co-design workshop was successful in creating and generating new ideas and solutions for smartphone app development.

Implementing a survey for patients to provide safety experience feedback following a care transition: a feasibility study

Background

The aim was to determine the feasibility of implementing a patient safety survey which measures patients’ experiences of their own safety relating to a care transition. This included limited-efficacy testing, determining acceptability (to patients and staff), and investigating integration with existing systems and practices from the staff perspective.

Methods

Mixed methods study in 16 wards across four hospitals, from two English NHS Trusts and four clinical areas; cardiology, care of older people, orthopaedics, stroke. Limited-efficacy testing of a previously validated survey was conducted through collection of patient reports of safety experiences, and thematic comparison with staff safety incident reports. Patient acceptability was determined through analysis of survey response rates and semi-structured interviews. Staff acceptability and integration were investigated through analysis of survey distribution rates, semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

Results

Patients returned 366 valid surveys (16.4% response rate) from 2824 distributed surveys (25.1% distribution rate). Older age was a contributing factor to lower responses. Delays were the largest safety concern for patients. Staff incident report themes included five not present in the safety survey data (documentation, pressure ulcers, devices or equipment, staffing shortages, and patient actions). Patient interviews (n = 28) identified that providing feedback was acceptable, subject to certain conditions being met; cognitive-cultural (patient understanding and prioritisation of safety), structural-procedural (opportunities, means and ease of providing feedback without fear of reprisals), and learning and change (closure of the feedback loop). Staff (n = 21) valued patient feedback but barriers to collecting and using the feedback included resource limitations, staff turnover and reluctance to over-burden patients.

Conclusions

Patients can provide meaningful feedback on their experiences and perceptions of safety in the context of care transitions. Providing this feedback was acceptable to some patients, subject to certain conditions being met. Safety experience feedback from patients was also acceptable to staff; quantitative data was perceived as useful to identify potential risks, and qualitative data informed types of changes required to improve care. However, patient feedback was not integrated into any quality improvement initiatives, suggesting there are still significant challenges to healthcare teams or organisations utilising patient feedback, particularly in relation to care transitions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4447-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient experience and reflective learning (PEARL): a mixed methods protocol for staff insight development in acute and intensive care medicine in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Patient and staff experiences are strongly influenced by attitudes and behaviours, and provide important insights into care quality. Patient and staff feedback could be used more effectively to enhance behaviours and improve care through systematic integration with techniques for reflective learning. We aim to develop a reflective learning framework and toolkit for healthcare staff to improve patient, family and staff experience.

METHODS & ANALYSIS

Local project teams including staff and patients from the acute medical units (AMUs) and intensive care units (ICUs) of three National Health Service trusts will implement two experience surveys derived from existing instruments: a continuous patient and relative survey and an annual staff survey. Survey data will be supplemented by ethnographic interviews and observations in the workplace to evaluate barriers to and facilitators of reflective learning. Using facilitated iterative co-design, local project teams will supplement survey data with their experiences of healthcare to identify events, actions, activities and interventions which promote personal insight and empathy through reflective learning. Outputs will be collated by the central project team to develop a reflective learning framework and toolkit which will be fed back to the local groups for review, refinement and piloting. The development process will be mapped to a conceptual theory of reflective learning which combines psychological and pedagogical theories of learning, alongside theories of behaviour change based on capability, opportunity and motivation influencing behaviour. The output will be a locally-adaptable workplace-based toolkit providing guidance on using reflective learning to incorporate patient and staff experience in routine clinical activities.

ETHICS & DISSEMINATION

The PEARL project has received ethics approval from the London Brent Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref 16/LO/224). We propose a national cluster randomised step-wedge trial of the toolkit developed for large-scale evaluation of impact on patient outcomes.

A qualitative study of patient involvement in medicines management after hospital discharge: an under-recognised source of systems resilience

INTRODUCTION

There are risks to the safety of medicines management when patient care is transferred between healthcare organisations, for example, when a patient is discharged from hospital. Using the theoretical concept of resilience in healthcare, this study aimed to better understand the proactive role that patients can play in creating safer, resilient medicines management at a common transition of care.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews with 60 cardiology patients 6 weeks after their discharge from 2 UK hospitals explored patients' experiences with their discharge medicines. Data were initially subjected to an inductive thematic analysis and a subsequent theory-guided deductive analysis.

RESULTS

During interviews 23 patients described medicines management resilience strategies in two main themes: identifying system vulnerabilities; and establishing self-management strategies. Patients could anticipate problems in the system that supplied them with medicines and took specific actions to prevent them. They also identified when errors had occurred both before and after medicines had been supplied and took corrective action to avoid harm. Some reported how they had not foreseen problems or experienced patient safety incidents. Patients recounted how they ensured information about medicines changes was correctly communicated and acted upon, and described their strategies to enhance their own reliability in adherence and resource management.

CONCLUSION

Patients experience the impact of vulnerabilities in the medicines management system across the secondary-primary care transition but many are able to enhance system resilience through developing strategies to reduce the risk of medicines errors occurring. Consequently, there are opportunities-with caveats-to elicit, develop and formalise patients' capabilities which would contribute to safer patient care and more effective medicines management.

Parents' Perspectives on Navigating the Work of Speaking Up in the NICU

OBJECTIVE

To describe parents' perspectives and likelihood of speaking up about safety concerns in the NICU and identify barriers and facilitators to parents speaking up.

DESIGN

Exploratory, qualitatively driven, mixed-methods design.

SETTING

A 50-bed U.S. academic medical center, open-bay NICU.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-six parents completed questionnaires, 14 of whom were also interviewed.

METHODS

Questionnaires, interviews, and observations with parents of newborns in the NICU were used. The qualitative investigation was based on constructivist grounded theory. Quantitative measures included ratings and free-text responses about the likelihood of speaking up in response to a hypothetical scenario about lack of clinician hand hygiene. Qualitative and quantitative analyses were integrated in the final interpretation.

RESULTS

Most parents (75%) rated themselves likely or very likely to speak up in response to lack of hand hygiene; 25% of parents rated themselves unlikely to speak up in the same situation. Parents engaged in a complex process of Navigating the work of speaking up in the NICU that entailed learning the NICU, being deliberate about decisions to speak up, and at times choosing silence as a safety strategy. Decisions about how and when to speak up were influenced by multiple factors including knowing my baby, knowing the team, having a defined pathway to voice concerns, clinician approachability, clinician availability and friendliness, and clinician responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

To engage parents as full partners in safety, clinicians need to recognize the complex social and personal dimensions of the NICU experience that influence parents' willingness to speak up about their safety concerns.

Patients’ expectations and solutions for improving primary diabetes care

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to document health care needs expressed by people living with diabetes, describe the solutions they envisaged for improving the quality of primary care (PC) services and empower them to make better use of PC services.

Design/methodology/approach

A participatory research approach was used. Six workshops were organised to provide diabetes patients with knowledge on available services and to engage them in sharing their experience. Group discussions were recorded. Data were analysed using the thematic analysis method.

Findings

In total, 79 persons living with diabetes for a mean of 13 years participated. Needs expressed were grouped under seven themes: assurance of satisfactory follow-up by a family physician, continuous access to services adapted to evolving needs, motivation to adopt and maintain healthy behaviours, maintenance of knowledge about diabetes, psychological support, financial constraints, and collaboration with secondary-level services. Patients proposed solutions for improving services that were grouped under five themes: facilitating access to services, disseminating information about available services, centralising diabetes information on the internet, offering personalised services and improving interprofessional collaboration.

Practical implications

Needs expressed by diabetic patients concern different aspects of care such as accessibility, organisation, coordination, and better dissemination and visibility of services. The solutions proposed by patients focussed on better access to information and interprofessional services.

Originality/value

The workshop format used in this study offers an original and interesting approach and tool for actively engaging patients in quality improvement of services.

PReSaFe: A model of barriers and facilitators to patients providing feedback on experiences of safety

Objective

The importance of involving patients in reporting on safety is increasingly recognized. Whilst studies have identified barriers to clinician incident reporting, few have explored barriers and facilitators to patient reporting of safety experiences. This paper explores patient perspectives on providing feedback on safety experiences.

Design/Participants

Patients (n=28) were invited to take part in semi‐structured interviews when given a survey about their experiences of safety following hospital discharge. Transcripts were thematically analysed using NVivo10.

Setting

Patients were recruited from four hospitals in the UK.

Results

Three themes were identified as barriers and facilitators to patient involvement in providing feedback on their safety experiences. The first, cognitive‐cultural, found that whilst safety was a priority for most, some felt the term was not relevant to them because safety was the “default” position, and/or because safety could not be disentangled from the overall experience of care. The structural‐procedural theme indicated that reporting was facilitated when patients saw the process as straightforward, but that disinclination or perceived inability to provide feedback was a barrier. Finally, learning and change illustrated that perception of the impact of feedback could facilitate or inhibit reporting.

Conclusions

When collecting patient feedback on experiences of safety, it is important to consider what may help or hinder this process, beyond the process alone. We present a staged model of prerequisite barriers and facilitators and hypothesize that each stage needs to be achieved for patients to provide feedback on safety experiences. Implications for collecting meaningful data on patients' safety experiences are considered.