Near real-time patient experience feedback with data relay to providers: a systematic review of its effectiveness.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal for Quality in Health Care Pub Date : 2024-06-22 DOI:10.1093/intqhc/mzae053
Tiago S Jesus, Jan Struhar, Manrui Zhang, Dongwook Lee, Brocha Z Stern, Allen W Heinemann, Neil Jordan, Anne Deutsch
{"title":"Near real-time patient experience feedback with data relay to providers: a systematic review of its effectiveness.","authors":"Tiago S Jesus, Jan Struhar, Manrui Zhang, Dongwook Lee, Brocha Z Stern, Allen W Heinemann, Neil Jordan, Anne Deutsch","doi":"10.1093/intqhc/mzae053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Near Real-Time Feedback (NRTF) on the patient's experience with care, coupled with data relay to providers, can inform quality-of-care improvements, including at the point of care. The objective is to systematically review contemporary literature on the impact of the use of NRTF and data relay to providers on standardized patient experience measures. Six scientific databases and five specialty journals were searched supplemented by snowballing search strategies, according to the registered study protocol. Eligibility included studies in English (2015-2023) assessing the impact of NRTF and data relay on standardized patient-reported experience measures as a primary outcome. Eligibility and quality appraisals were performed by two independent reviewers. An expert former patient (Patient and Family Advisory Council and communication sciences background) helped interpret the results. Eight papers met review eligibility criteria, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized study. Three of these studies involved in-person NRTF prior to data relay (patient-level data for immediate corrective action or aggregated and peer-compared) and led to significantly better results in all or some of the experience measures. In turn, a kiosk-based NRTF achieved no better experience results. The remaining studies were pre-post designs with mixed or neutral results and greater risks of bias. In-person NRTF on the patient experience followed by rapid data relay to their providers, either patient-level or provider-level as peer-compared, can improve the patient experience of care. Reviewed kiosk-based or self-reported approaches combined with data relay were not effective. Further research should determine which approach (e.g. who conducts the in-person NRTF) will provide better, more efficient improvements and under which circumstances.</p>","PeriodicalId":13800,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Quality in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzae053","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Near Real-Time Feedback (NRTF) on the patient's experience with care, coupled with data relay to providers, can inform quality-of-care improvements, including at the point of care. The objective is to systematically review contemporary literature on the impact of the use of NRTF and data relay to providers on standardized patient experience measures. Six scientific databases and five specialty journals were searched supplemented by snowballing search strategies, according to the registered study protocol. Eligibility included studies in English (2015-2023) assessing the impact of NRTF and data relay on standardized patient-reported experience measures as a primary outcome. Eligibility and quality appraisals were performed by two independent reviewers. An expert former patient (Patient and Family Advisory Council and communication sciences background) helped interpret the results. Eight papers met review eligibility criteria, including three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-randomized study. Three of these studies involved in-person NRTF prior to data relay (patient-level data for immediate corrective action or aggregated and peer-compared) and led to significantly better results in all or some of the experience measures. In turn, a kiosk-based NRTF achieved no better experience results. The remaining studies were pre-post designs with mixed or neutral results and greater risks of bias. In-person NRTF on the patient experience followed by rapid data relay to their providers, either patient-level or provider-level as peer-compared, can improve the patient experience of care. Reviewed kiosk-based or self-reported approaches combined with data relay were not effective. Further research should determine which approach (e.g. who conducts the in-person NRTF) will provide better, more efficient improvements and under which circumstances.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过向医疗服务提供者转发数据实现近乎实时的患者体验反馈:对其有效性的系统性审查。
对患者护理体验的近实时反馈(NRTF)以及向医疗服务提供者转发的数据可以为改善护理质量(包括在护理点)提供信息。本研究的目的是系统回顾有关使用 NRTF 和向医疗服务提供者转发数据对标准化患者体验测量的影响的当代文献。根据注册的研究协议,通过滚雪球搜索策略对六个科学数据库和五个专业期刊进行了检索。符合条件的研究包括英文研究(2015-2023 年),这些研究评估了 NRTF 和数据转发对标准化患者报告体验指标的影响,并将其作为主要结果。资格审查和质量评估由两名独立评审员进行。一位前患者专家(患者及家属咨询委员会和传播科学背景)帮助解释了结果。八篇论文符合评审资格标准,其中包括三项随机对照试验(RCT)和一项非随机研究。其中三项研究在数据转发前进行了面对面的 NRTF(用于立即采取纠正措施的患者级数据或汇总数据并进行同行比较),并在所有或部分体验测量中取得了明显更好的结果。反过来,基于信息亭的 NRTF 没有取得更好的体验结果。其余的研究都是前后设计,结果不一或中性,存在较大的偏差风险。就患者体验进行面对面的 NRTF,然后将数据快速传递给医疗服务提供者,无论是患者层面还是医疗服务提供者层面的同行比较,都能改善患者的护理体验。经审查的基于信息亭或自我报告的方法与数据转发相结合效果不佳。进一步的研究应确定哪种方法(如由谁进行面对面的 NRTF)能提供更好、更有效的改善,以及在何种情况下。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal for Quality in Health Care makes activities and research related to quality and safety in health care available to a worldwide readership. The Journal publishes papers in all disciplines related to the quality and safety of health care, including health services research, health care evaluation, technology assessment, health economics, utilization review, cost containment, and nursing care research, as well as clinical research related to quality of care. This peer-reviewed journal is truly interdisciplinary and includes contributions from representatives of all health professions such as doctors, nurses, quality assurance professionals, managers, politicians, social workers, and therapists, as well as researchers from health-related backgrounds.
期刊最新文献
Optimizing warfarin and dual oral anticoagulation practices in an academic clinic during a merger amid the COVID-19 pandemic in a marginalized population. International research priorities for integrated care and cross-boundary working: an electronic Delphi study. Intravenous iron staining. Real-world incidence, preventability, and mitigation tools from a long-term quality improvement project. The Future of Global Graduate Training in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety. How can we measure psychological safety in mental healthcare staff? Developing questionnaire items using a nominal groups technique.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1