Patient and public involvement in the design, administration and evaluation of patient feedback tools, an example in psychiatry: a systematic review and critical interpretative synthesis

被引:8
作者
Baines, Rebecca [1 ]
Donovan, John [2 ]
de Bere, Sam Regan [3 ]
Archer, Julian [1 ]
Jones, Ray [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Plymouth, Fac Med & Dent, Collaborat Adv Med Educ Res & Assessment, Plymouth, Devon, England
[2] Volunteer Mental Hlth Patient Res Partner, London, England
[3] Univ Plymouth, Fac Med & Dent, Collaborat Adv Med Educ Res & Assessment, Med Humanities, Plymouth, Devon, England
[4] Univ Plymouth, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Hlth Informat, Plymouth, Devon, England
关键词
health policy; mental health; patient and public involvement; patient experience; psychiatry; systematic review; HEALTH-CARE; OPTIMIZING PATIENT; QUALITY; SATISFACTION; SERVICES; SAFETY; STAFF;
D O I
10.1177/1355819618811866
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Patient feedback is considered integral to healthcare design, delivery and reform. However, while there is a strong policy commitment to evidencing patient and public involvement (PPI) in the design of patient feedback tools, it remains unclear whether this happens in practice. Methods A systematic review using thematic analysis and critical interpretative synthesis of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2007 and 2017 exploring the presence of PPI in the design, administration and evaluation of patient feedback tools for practising psychiatrists. The research process was carried out in collaboration with a volunteer mental health patient research partner. Results Fourteen articles (10 peer-reviewed, four grey literature) discussing the development of nine patient feedback tools were included. Six of the nine tools reviewed were designed from a professional perspective only. Tool content and its categorization primarily remained at the professional's discretion. Patient participation rates, presence of missing data and psychometric validation were used to determine validity and patient acceptability. In most instances, patients remained passive recipients with limited opportunity to actively influence change at any stage. No article reviewed reported PPI in all aspects of tool design, administration or evaluation. Conclusions The majority of patient feedback tools are designed, administered and evaluated from the professional perspective only. Existing tools appear to assume that: professional and patient agendas are synonymous; psychometric validation is indicative of patient acceptability; and psychiatric patients do not have the capacity or desire to be involved. Future patient feedback tools should be co-produced from the outset to ensure they are valued by all those involved. A reconsideration of the purpose of patient feedback, and what constitutes valid patient feedback, is also required.
引用
收藏
页码:130 / 142
页数:13
相关论文
共 55 条
  • [1] The Role of Constructive Feedback in Patient Safety and Continuous Quality Improvement
    Altmiller, Gerry
    [J]. NURSING CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2012, 47 (03) : 365 - +
  • [2] [Anonymous], TAKING REVALIDATION
  • [3] [Anonymous], INTERIM REPORT
  • [4] [Anonymous], RAYYAN A WEB MOBILE
  • [5] [Anonymous], MULT FEEDB PAT SURV
  • [6] [Anonymous], WHY CHOOS ACP 360
  • [7] [Anonymous], 4 INT C GREY LIT NEW
  • [8] [Anonymous], WHAT IS ACP 360
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2012, GMC MULTISOURCE FEED
  • [10] [Anonymous], SUPP INF APPR REV GU