Patient-Reported Experience Measures to Evaluate and Improve the Quality of Care in Nephrology

Patient experience is considered a pillar of high-quality care, integral to patient-centered care, but despite significant policy focus on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), little is published regarding their development, use, or impact on clinical practice. In nephrology, PREMs are increasingly used in research to capture and quantify patients' perceptions of their experiences with health care services. It has been shown that a negative patient experience impacts patients' physical and psychological health, and a small but significant proportion of patients across a selection of settings report their experiences of health care as poor or suboptimal. Evidence of whether PREMs improve quality of care or support person-centered care in the clinical setting remains largely theoretical. Extensive effort has been invested to develop various PREMs for kidney services. Although little evidence linking PREM collection to meaningful change in delivery of care currently exists, work is underway. Early indications are that with the right facilitators, implementing PREMs in routine practice can help providers recognize where change is needed and galvanize transformation. The journey toward understanding the connection between PREM data and modifiable provider characteristics to target and enable change has started, but further evidence is needed. This article outlines the history of PREMs in nephrology and details their current use alongside implementation challenges. The use and benefits of PREMs are discussed before considering the evidence base for their impact on renal health care. Possible next steps for PREMs are suggested and best practices highlighted.

Measuring Patient Experience and Patient Satisfaction—How Are We Doing It and Why Does It Matter? A Comparison of European and U.S. American Approaches

(1) Background: Patients’ experiences and satisfaction with their treatment are becoming increasingly important in the context of quality assurance, but the measurement of these parameters is accompanied by several disadvantages such as poor cross-country comparability and methodological problems. The aim of this review is to describe and summarize the process of measuring, publishing, and utilizing patient experience and satisfaction data in countries with highly developed healthcare systems in Europe (Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, the United Kingdom) and the USA to identify possible approaches for improvement. (2) Methods: Articles published between 2000 and 2021 that address the topics described were identified. Furthermore, patient feedback in social media and the influence of sociodemographic and hospital characteristics on patient satisfaction and experience were evaluated. (3) Results: The literature reveals that all countries perform well in collecting patient satisfaction and experience data and making them publicly available. However, due to the use of various different questionnaires, comparability of the results is difficult, and consequences drawn from these data remain largely unclear. (4) Conclusions: Surveying patient experience and satisfaction with more unified as well as regularly updated questionnaires would be helpful to eliminate some of the described problems. Additionally, social media platforms must be considered as an increasingly important source to expand the range of patient feedback.

The uses of Patient Reported Experience Measures in health systems: A systematic narrative review

BACKGROUND

Many governments have programmes collecting and reporting patient experience data, captured through Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs). Our study aims to capture and describe all the ways in which PREM data are used within healthcare systems, and explore the impacts of using PREMs at one level (e.g. national health system strategy) on other levels (e.g. providers).

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review, underpinned by a systematic search of the literature.

RESULTS

1,711 unique entries were identified through the search process. After abstract screening, 142 articles were reviewed in full, resulting in 28 for final inclusion. A majority of papers describe uses of PREMs at the micro level, focussed on improving quality of front-line care. Meso-level uses were in quality-based financing or for performance improvement. Few macro-level uses were identified. We found limited evidence of the impact of meso‑ and macro- efforts to stimulate action to improve patient experience at the micro-level.

CONCLUSIONS

PREM data are used as performance information at all levels in health systems. The use of PREM data at macro- and meso‑ levels may have an effect in stimulating action at the micro-level, but there is a lack of systematic evidence, or evaluation of these micro-level actions. Longitudinal studies would help better understand how to improve patient experience, and interfaces between PREM scores and the wider associated positive outcomes.

The relationship between healthcare service provision models and patient experience

Purpose

User experience is key for measuring and improving the quality of services, especially in high personal and relation-intensive sectors, such as healthcare. However, evidence on whether and how the organizational model of healthcare service delivery can affect the patient experience is at an early stage. This study investigates the relationship between healthcare service provision models and patient experience by focusing on the nursing care delivery.

Design/methodology/approach

65 nurses' coordinators were involved to map the nursing models adopted in the healthcare organizations of in an Italian region, Tuscany. This dataset was merged with patient experience measures reported by 9,393 individuals discharged by the same organizations and collected through a Patient-Reported Experience Measures Observatory. The authors run a series of logistic regression models to test the relationships among variables.

Findings

Patients appreciate those characteristics of care delivery related to a specific professional nurse. Having someone who is in charge of the patient, both the reference nurse and the supervisor, makes a real difference. Purely organizational features, for instance those referring to the team working, do not significantly predict an excellent experience with healthcare services.

Research limitations/implications

Different features referring to different nursing models make the difference in producing an excellent user experience with the service.

Practical implications

These findings can support managers and practitioners in taking decisions on the service delivery models to adopt. Instead of applying monolithic pure models, mixing features of different models into a hybrid one seems more effective in meeting users' expectations.

Originality/value

This is one of the first studies on the relationship between provision models of high-contact and relational-intensive services (the healthcare services) and users' experience. This research contributes to the literature on healthcare service management suggesting to acknowledge the importance of hybridization of features from different, purely theoretical service delivery models, in order to fit with providers' practice and users' expectations.

Highlights

This is one of the first studies on the relationship between provision models of nursing care and patient experience.

Healthcare services' users appreciate service delivery characteristics identified with “be cared by,” or in other words with having a reference nurse.

Nursing models' features that relate to the organizations and that providers tend to judge as professionalizing and evolutive, such as team working, appear not key in relation to patient experience.

Pure models of service delivery are theoretically useful, but hybrid models can better meet users' expectations.

Qualitative perspectives of nurse managers on mixed-gender accommodation in a regional hospital in Australia

AIMS

To explore and analyse the current bed management processes and understand the perspectives of nurse managers on mixed-gender accommodation in a regional hospital in Australia.

BACKGROUND

Mixed-gender accommodation was introduced to help manage the increasing demand for hospital beds. Yet, some health services identify same-gender accommodation better aligns with patient-centredness.

METHOD

This qualitative research was conducted at a public hospital in regional Australia and focused on the experience in the general wards. Eight nurse managers were selected using purposeful sampling. Data were collected through face-to-face semi-structured interviews and thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified: current admission processes-managing admissions, bed allocation considerations, patient involvement and managing mixed-gender rooms; impacts on patients-participant views, patient experience and bathrooms; and barriers and facilitators-capacity, infrastructure, safety and risk, bed swapping and organisational factors.

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates a lack of structure and patient-centredness with mixed-gender allocation processes. Local organisational guidelines are suggested to support improvement in patient-centred inpatient hospital accommodation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

The findings of this study will help nursing leaders drive positive change concerning bed allocations and support advocacy for patient rights. Future studies should explore the patient perspective of mixed-gender accommodation.

Improving the Usefulness and Use of Patient Survey Programs: National Health Service Interview Study

Background

A growing body of evidence suggests a concerning lag between collection of patient experience data and its application in service improvement. This study aims to identify what health care staff perceive to be the barriers and facilitators to using patient-reported feedback and showcase successful examples of doing so.

Objective

This study aimed to apply a systems perspective to suggest policy improvements that could support efforts to use data on the frontlines.

Methods

Qualitative interviews were conducted in eight National Health Service provider locations in the United Kingdom, which were selected based on National Inpatient Survey scores. Eighteen patient-experience leads were interviewed about using patient-reported feedback with relevant staff. Interviews were transcribed and underwent thematic analysis. Staff-identified barriers and facilitators to using patient experience feedback were obtained.

Results

The most frequently cited barriers to using patient reported feedback pertained to interpreting results, understanding survey methodology, presentation of data in both national Care Quality Commission and contractor reports, inability to link data to other sources, and organizational structure. In terms of a wish list for improved practice, staff desired more intuitive survey methodologies, the ability to link patient experience data to other sources, and more examples of best practice in patient experience improvement. Three organizations also provided examples of how they successfully used feedback to improve care.

Conclusions

Staff feedback provides a roadmap for policy makers to reconsider how data is collected and whether or not the national regulations on surveys and patient experience data are meeting the quality improvement needs of local organizations.

Secondary analysis of hospital patient experience scores across England's National Health Service - How much has improved since 2005?

OBJECTIVE

To examine trends in patient experience and consistency between hospital trusts and settings.

METHODS

Observational study of publicly available patient experience surveys of three hospital settings (inpatients (IP), accident and emergency (A&E) and outpatients (OP)) of 130 acute NHS hospital trusts in England between 2004/05 and 2014/15.

RESULTS

Overall patient experience has been good, showing modest improvements over time across the three hospital settings. Individual questions with the biggest improvement across all three settings are cleanliness (IP: +7.1, A&E: +6.5, OP: +4.7) and information about danger signals (IP: +3.8, A&E: +3.9, OP: +4.0). Trust performance has been consistent over time: 71.5% of trusts ranked in the same cluster for more than five years. There is some consistency across settings, especially between outpatients and inpatients. The lowest-scoring questions, regarding information at discharge, are the same in all years and all settings.

CONCLUSIONS

The greatest improvement across all three settings has been for cleanliness, which has seen national policies and targets. Information about danger signals and medication side-effects showed least consistency across settings and scores have remained low over time, despite information about danger signals showing a big increase in score. Patient experience of aspects of access and waiting have declined, as has experience of discharge delay, likely reflecting known increases in pressure on England's NHS.