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
  • [21] Validation of a multi-source feedback tool for use in general practice[J]. Campbell, John;Narayanan, Ajit;Burford, Bryan;Greco, Michael. EDUCATION FOR PRIMARY CARE, 2010(03)
  • [22] Factors associated with variability in the assessment of UK doctors' professionalism: analysis of survey results[J]. Campbell, John L.;Roberts, Martin;Wright, Christine;Hill, Jacqueline;Greco, Michael;Taylor, Matthew;Richards, Suzanne. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011
  • [23] Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care[J]. Crawford, MJ;Rutter, D;Manley, C;Weaver, T;Bhui, K;Fulop, N;Tyrer, P. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2002(7375)
  • [24] Development and Testing of the Combined Assessment of Psychiatric Environments: A Patient-Centered Quality Measure for Inpatient Psychiatric Treatment[J]. Delaney, Kathleen R.;Johnson, Mary E.;Fogg, Louis. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC NURSES ASSOCIATION, 2015(02)
  • [25] Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups[J]. Dixon-Woods M.;Cavers D.;Agarwal S.;Annandale E.;Arthur A.;Harvey J.;Hsu R.;Katbamna S.;Olsen R.;Smith L.;Riley R.;Sutton A.J. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 1600(1)
  • [26] Validity: on the meaningful interpretation of assessment data[J]. Downing, SM. MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2003(09)
  • [27] Experiencing patient-experience surveys: a qualitative study of the accounts of GPs[J]. Edwards, Adrian;Evans, Richard;White, Paul;Elwyn, Glyn. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2011(585)
  • [28] Synthesis of quantitative and qualitative research: an example using Critical Interpretive Synthesis[J]. Flemming, Kate. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2010(01)
  • [29] Barriers to Participation in a Patient Satisfaction Survey: Who Are We Missing?[J]. Gayet-Ageron, Angele;Agoritsas, Thomas;Schiesari, Laura;Kolly, Veronique;Perneger, Thomas V. PLOS ONE, 2011(10)
  • [30] Evaluating health services with point of service feedback: perspectives and experiences of patients, staff and community volunteers in an inpatient rehabilitation facility[J]. Gill, Stephen D.;Dolley, Pamela J.;Dunning, Trisha L.;Hughes, Andrew J. DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2015(21)