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

Online patient feedback as a safety valve: An automated language analysis of unnoticed and unresolved safety incidents

Safety reporting systems are widely used in healthcare to identify risks to patient safety. But, their effectiveness is undermined if staff do not notice or report incidents. Patients, however, might observe and report these overlooked incidents because they experience the consequences, are highly motivated, and independent of the organization. Online patient feedback may be especially valuable because it is a channel of reporting that allows patients to report without fear of consequence (e.g., anonymously). Harnessing this potential is challenging because online feedback is unstructured and lacks demonstrable validity and added value. Accordingly, we developed an automated language analysis method for measuring the likelihood of patient-reported safety incidents in online patient feedback. Feedback from patients and families (n = 146,685, words = 22,191,427, years = 2013-2019) about acute NHS trusts (hospital conglomerates; n = 134) in England were analyzed. The automated measure had good precision (0.69) and excellent recall (0.98) in identifying incidents; was independent of staff-reported incidents (r = -0.04 to 0.19); and was associated with hospital-level mortality rates (z = 3.87; p < 0.001). The identified safety incidents were often reported as unnoticed (89%) or unresolved (21%), suggesting that patients use online platforms to give visibility to safety concerns they believe have been missed or ignored. Online stakeholder feedback is akin to a safety valve; being independent and unconstrained it provides an outlet for reporting safety issues that may have been unnoticed or unresolved within formal channels.

The Utility of an Online Forward Triage Tool During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: Health Care Provider and Health Authority Perspectives

Introduction

The SARS CoV-2 pandemic poses major challenges not only to patients but also to health care professionals and policy-makers, with rapidly changing, sometimes complex, recommendations, and guidelines to the population. Online forward triage tools (OFTT) got a major boost from the pandemic as they helped with the implementation and monitoring of recommendations.

Methods

A multiphase mixed method sequential explanatory study design was employed. Quantitative data were collected first and informed the qualitative interview guides. Video interviews were held with key informants (health care providers and health authorities) between 2 September and 10 December 2020. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim, coded thematically and compared with patient perspectives (framework).

Objectives

To explore the perspectives of health care providers and authorities in Canton Bern on the utility of a COVID-19 OFTT, as well as elicit recommendations for telehealth in future.

Results

The following themes emerged; (i) accessibility (ii) health system burden reduction (iii) utility in preventing onward transmission (iv) utility in allaying fear and anxiety (v) medical decision-making utility (vi) utility as information source (vii) utility in planning and systems thinking. The health care providers and health authorities further provided insights on potential barriers and facilitators of telehealth in future.

Conclusion

Similar to patients, health care providers acknowledge the potential and utility of the COVID-19 OFTT particularly as an information source and in reducing the health system burden. Data privacy, doctor-patient relationship, resistance to change, regulatory, and mandate issues, and lack of systems thinking were revealed as barriers to COVID-19 OFTT utility.

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.

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.