Online patient feedback: a cross-sectional survey of the attitudes and experiences of United Kingdom health care professionals

A Taxonomy for Health Information Systems

The health sector is highly digitized, which is enabling the collection of vast quantities of electronic data about health and well-being. These data are collected by a diverse array of information and communication technologies, including systems used by health care organizations, consumer and community sources such as information collected on the web, and passively collected data from technologies such as wearables and devices. Understanding the breadth of IT that collect these data and how it can be actioned is a challenge for the significant portion of the digital health workforce that interact with health data as part of their duties but are not for informatics experts. This viewpoint aims to present a taxonomy categorizing common information and communication technologies that collect electronic data. An initial classification of key information systems collecting electronic health data was undertaken via a rapid review of the literature. Subsequently, a purposeful search of the scholarly and gray literature was undertaken to extract key information about the systems within each category to generate definitions of the systems and describe the strengths and limitations of these systems.

Developing a Tool for Assessing the Process of Seeking Health Information: Online Think-Aloud Method

Nursing students can access massive amounts of online health data to drive cutting-edge evidence-based practice in clinical placement, to bridge the theory-practice gap. This activity requires investigation to identify the strategies nursing students apply to evaluate online health information. Online Think-Aloud sessions enabled 14 participants to express their cognitive processes in navigating various educational resources, including online journals and databases, and determining the reliability of sources, indicating their strategies for information-seeking, which helped to create this scoring system. Easy access and user convenience were clearly the instrumental factors in this behavior, which has troubling implications for the lack of use of higher-quality resources (e.g., from peer-reviewed academic journals). The identified challenges encountered during resource access included limited skills in the critical evaluation of information credibility and reliability, signaling a requirement for improved information literacy skills. Participants acknowledged the importance of evidence-based, high-quality information, but faced numerous barriers, such as restricted access to professional and specialty databases, and a lack of academic skills training. This paper develops and critiques a Performative Tool for assessing the process of seeking health information using an online Think-Aloud method, and explores factors and strategies contributing to evidence-based health information access and utilization in clinical practice, aiming to provide insight into individuals' information-seeking behaviors in online health contexts.

Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform

INTRODUCTION

Care Opinion is an online feedback platform supporting patients to author stories about their care. It is not known whether authors would be willing to be involved in improving care through research. The aims of this study were to explore the views and preferences of Care Opinion authors about joining an online research community and to pilot new research community functionality.

METHODS

Five hundred and nine Care Opinion authors were invited to take part in an online survey in June 2019. Survey items included questions about participants' willingness to take part in research and their preferences for supporting processes. Data were analysed descriptively. Authors were invited to consent to join a research community and were asked to participate in three pilot studies.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-three people consented to take part in the survey (32%). Participants indicated they would like to know the time commitment to the project (146, 90%), details about the organization carrying out the research (124, 76%) and safeguarding information (124, 76%). Over half indicated that they did not know how to get involved in healthcare research (87, 53%). Subsequently, 667 authors were invited to join the research community, 183 (27%) accepted, and three studies were matched to their expressed preferences for project attributes or organization type.

CONCLUSION

Many people who leave online feedback about their experiences of healthcare are also willing to join a research community via that platform. They have strong preferences for supporting University and NHS research. Eligibility and acceptance rates to join pilot research studies varied. Further work is needed to grow the research community, increase its diversity, and create relevant and varied opportunities to support research.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Four members of the Safety In Numbers patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group advised about survey development.

A Pilot Study Conducting Online Think Aloud Qualitative Method during Social Distancing: Benefits and Challenges

COVID-19 social distancing restrictions provided unprecedented insights into online research methodologies and approaches for both participants and researchers. Field research traditionally conducted face-to-face had to be transferred online, highlighting the great strides made in communication technologies (particularly live video streaming) over the last two decades for online qualitative research. However, dedicated research on these phenomena is tentative, including with regard to specific methods such as Think Aloud. This paper contributes to literature on online Think Aloud in qualitative research, evaluating new insights on its adoption online. It draws on findings from an online piloting study of Think Aloud tasks to explore the implications of using real-time internet video calls via SoIP applications by MS Teams. To assess the online Think Aloud process, this review called upon some of the comments made by participants during the semi-structured interview or comments made during the Think Aloud process, when they were relevant to the online process itself. It focuses on different dimensions of benefits, rapport in the session’s encounter, challenges, and ethical concerns. Overall, the findings indicate that online Think Aloud sessions cannot completely replace in-person sessions for some particular and highly in-depth research areas, but they can greatly facilitate qualitative data collection in most conventional contexts. It is necessary to carry out further studies exploring the use of this and other online approaches and instructions.

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.

‘Using humanity to change systems’ – understanding the work of online feedback moderation: A case study of Care Opinion Scotland

Objective

To gain a deeper understanding of online patient feedback moderation through the organisation of Care Opinion in Scotland.

Methods

An ethnographic study, initially using in-person participant observations, switching to remote methods due to the pandemic. This involved the use of remote observations and interviews. Interviews were carried out with the whole Scottish team (n = 8).

Results

Our results identify three major themes of work found in online patient feedback moderation. The first is process work, where moderators make decisions on how to edit and publish stories. The second is emotional labour from working with healthcare experiences and with NHS staff. The third is the brokering/mediation role of Care Opinion, where they must manage the relationships between authors, subscribing healthcare providers and Scottish Government. Our results also capture that these different themes are not independent and can at times influence the others.

Conclusion

Our results build on previous literature on Care Opinion and provide novel insights into the emotional and brokering/mediation work they undertake. Care Opinion holds a unique position, where they must balance the interests of the key stakeholders. Care Opinion holds the power to amplify authors’ voices but the power to make changes to services lies with NHS staff and services. Online moderation work is complex, and moderators require support to carry out their work especially given the emotional impact. Further research is planned to understand how patient stories are used by NHS Scotland, and the emotional labour involved with stories, from both the author and NHS staff perspective.

Caring for care: Online feedback in the context of public healthcare services

People increasingly provide feedback about healthcare services online. These practices have been lauded for enhancing patient power, choice and control, encouraging greater transparency and accountability, and contributing to healthcare service improvement. Online feedback has also been critiqued for being unrepresentative, spreading inaccurate information, undermining care relations, and jeopardising professional autonomy. Through a thematic analysis of 37 qualitative interviews, this paper explores the relationship between online feedback and care improvement as articulated by healthcare service users (patients and family members) who provided feedback across different online platforms and social media in the UK. Online feedback was framed by interviewees as, ideally, a public and, in many cases, anonymous 'conversation' between service users and healthcare providers. These 'conversations' were thought of not merely as having the potential to bring about tangible improvements to healthcare, but as in themselves constituting an improvement in care. Vital to this was the premise that providing feedback was an enactment of care - care for other patients, certainly, but also care for healthcare as such and even for healthcare professionals. Ultimately, feedback was understood as an enactment of care for the National Health Service (NHS), as symbolically encompassing all of the above. Putting these findings in dialogue with STS scholarship on care, we argue that, in this context, the provision of online feedback can be understood as a form of care that is, simultaneously, both directed at healthcare (in the round, including patients, professionals, services, organisations, and, of course, health itself) and part of healthcare. We conceptualise this as 'caring for care'. This conceptualization moves beyond dominant framings of online feedback in terms of 'choice' and 'voice'. It embeds online feedback within pre-existing healthcare systems, relations and moral commitments, foregrounds the mutuality of care relations, and draws attention to the affective labour of feedback practices.

Exploring patients' pharmacy stories: an analysis of online feedback

Background Studies have demonstrated the potential for patient feedback to inform quality care as well as a direct relationship between patient experience and clinical outcomes. Over recent years, there has been increasing use of online patient feedback platforms, however, there has been little study of the content of patient feedback relating to pharmacy and pharmacy services. Objective This study explores the content of online feedback provided by patients from across the UK in relation to their experiences of their interaction with pharmacy staff and pharmacy services. Main outcome measure Content of online patient feedback relating to pharmacy. Method Patient stories published on Care Opinion, a national online patient feedback platform, for a one-year period were searched for all content relating to patients’ pharmacy experiences. A thematic and sentiment analysis was conducted on 237 patient stories. Results Patient stories related to supply, staff attitudes, services, accessibility, systems, and errors. Patient sentiment depended on pharmacy setting, but staff attitudes, services, and accessibility were generally positive across all settings. Waiting time was the most common complaint in both hospital and community pharmacies with stories relaying experiences of slow discharge, stock shortages and poor communication and collaboration between pharmacies and GP surgeries. Conclusions Online patient feedback highlighted factors important to patients when interacting with pharmacies and their staff. Medication supply was the primary topic of patient stories with waiting times and stock shortages being clear areas for improvement; however, accessibility, pharmacy services and advice were key strengths of the profession. Further research is needed to understand how online patient feedback can be used effectively to inform improvements in pharmacy services.

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.

Implementing online patient feedback in a 'special measures' acute hospital: A case study using Normalisation Process Theory

Objective

Online patient feedback is becoming increasingly prevalent on an international scale. However, limited research has explored how healthcare organisations implement such feedback. This research sought to explore how an acute hospital, recently placed into ‘special measures’ by a regulatory body implemented online feedback to support its improvement journey.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eleven key stakeholders involved in the implementation and/or use of online patient feedback. Data was analysed using deductive thematic analysis with Normalisation Process Theory used as the analytical framework. Research findings are translated into the Engage, Support and Promote (ESP) model, a model of rapid feedback adoption.

Results

Participants viewed the implementation of online feedback as an opportunity to learn, change and improve. Factors found to facilitate implementation were often linked to engagement, support and promotion. Although less frequently described, barriers to implementation included staff anxieties about time pressures, moderation processes and responding responsibilities. Such anxieties were often addressed by activities including the provision of evidence based responder training. Overall, staff were overwhelmingly positive about the value of online feedback with 24 impacts identified at an individual and organisational level, including the ability to boost staff morale, resilience and pride.

Conclusions

The rapid implementation of online patient feedback can be achieved in a ‘special measures’ organisation. However, the difficulties of implementing such feedback should not be underestimated. In order to embed online feedback, staff members need to be engaged and feel supported, with opportunities to provide, respond and invite patient feedback frequently promoted to both patients and staff members.

[Positive association between successful rehabilitation and patient hospital ratings: Experience reports of patients in rehabilitation on a hospital rating and review site]

INTRODUCTION

Feedback from patients about aspects of rehabilitation services is increasingly provided online, for example, on specialized hospital comparison websites. Therefore, we examined which kind of online statements from rehabilitation patients published on the leading hospital comparison website "Klinikbewertungen.de" (KB) is associated with a positive recommendation of a rehabilitation clinic and which negative aspects are associated with a non-recommendation.

METHODS

For eight indication groups stratified online statements of rehabilitants at KB were evaluated qualitatively using content analysis. The relationship between positive (negative) statements and the (non-) recommendation was examined.

RESULTS

Content analysis of 911 experience reports revealed 20 categories. Most often, it was the "rehabilitation success" perceived by rehabilitation patients that was significantly associated with a recommendation or a non-recommendation of a hospital, and in five quality assurance (QA) comparison groups the category "catering" was associated with a positive or negative recommendation. In all QS comparison groups, there was an association with at least one of the following process-oriented rehabilitation categories: "rehabilitation measures", "rehabilitation plan and rehabilitation goals" and / or "diagnosis to discharge".

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Patient experiences with the perceived "rehabilitation success" and with the central processes of rehabilitation are particularly important for the recommendation or non-recommendation of a hospital for patients in all eight indication groups. On the basis of these results, rehabilitation hospitals can specifically identify the aspects of care that are important when patients recommend a hospital for rehabilitation. Online narratives of patients provide additional insights into the reasons for patients' satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their rehabilitation. These narratives are available to potential rehabilitation patients as a low-threshold source of information and decision-making aid.

Exploring UK doctors' attitudes towards online patient feedback: Thematic analysis of survey data

Introduction

Patients are increasingly using online platforms to give feedback about their health-care experiences. Online feedback has been proposed as a way to drive transformative change in the health service through informing choice and improving quality. Attitudes held by health-care professionals influence the uptake of new technologies. Understanding these attitudes is essential in exploring the potential of online patient feedback as a standard feedback mechanism. This study explores the content of free-text comments left by doctors responding to a survey with the aim of understanding their attitudes towards online feedback.

Methods

A cross-sectional online questionnaire was completed by 1001 UK primary and secondary-care doctors. Doctors were given the opportunity to leave a free-text comment about online patient feedback. Doctors’ attitudes towards online patient feedback were identified and explored using thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to examine demographic differences between those doctors who left a comment and those who did not.

Results

Thematic analysis identified five key interrelated themes: anonymity, confidentiality, representativeness, moderation/regulation of online feedback and platform type. The characteristics of those leaving a comment very closely matched those of the entire survey sample.

Conclusion

Across the comments, the most prominent finding was a general scepticism and caution towards online feedback, with most of the key themes relating to the perceived limitations and challenges. Further work exploring ways of addressing and verifying online comments without breaching confidentiality could provide valuable information to health systems seeking to drive improvement through patient online feedback.

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.