Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWright, Christineen
dc.contributor.authorDavey, Antoinetteen
dc.contributor.authorElmore, Natashaen
dc.contributor.authorCarter, Maryen
dc.contributor.authorMounce, Lukeen
dc.contributor.authorWilson, Eden
dc.contributor.authorBurt, Jennien
dc.contributor.authorRoland, Martinen
dc.contributor.authorCampbell, Johnen
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-22T09:47:47Z
dc.date.available2016-04-22T09:47:47Z
dc.date.issued2016-05-16en
dc.identifier.citationWright et al. Health Expectations (2016)en
dc.identifier.issn1369-7625
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/255133
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: There is growing interest in real-time feedback (RTF), which involves collecting and summarizing information about patient experience at the point of care with the aim of informing service improvement. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility and acceptability of RTF in UK general practice. DESIGN: Exploratory randomized trial. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ten general practices in south-west England and Cambridgeshire. All patients attending surgeries were eligible to provide RTF. INTERVENTION: Touch screens were installed in waiting areas for 12 weeks with practice staff responsible for encouraging patients to provide RTF. All practices received fortnightly feedback summaries. Four teams attended a facilitated reflection session. OUTCOMES: RTF 'response rates' among consulting patients were estimated, and the representativeness of touch screen users were assessed. The frequency of staff-patient interactions about RTF (direct observation) and patient views of RTF (exit survey) were summarized. Associated costs were collated. RESULTS: About 2.5% consulting patients provided RTF (range 0.7-8.0% across practices), representing a mean of 194 responses per practice. Patients aged above 65 were under-represented among touch screen users. Receptionists rarely encouraged RTF but, when this did occur, 60% patients participated. Patients were largely positive about RTF but identified some barriers. Costs per practice for the twelve-week period ranged from £1125 (unfacilitated team-level feedback) to £1887 (facilitated team ± practitioner-level feedback). The main cost was the provision of touch screens. CONCLUSIONS: Response rates for RTF were lower than those of other survey modes, although the numbers of patients providing feedback to each practice were comparable to those achieved in the English national GP patient survey. More patients might engage with RTF if the opportunity were consistently highlighted to them.
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme. Grant Number: RP‐PG‐0608‐10050
dc.languageengen
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherBlackwell Publishing Inc.
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectpatient feedbacken
dc.subjectprimary careen
dc.subjectreal time feedbacken
dc.subjectsurveyen
dc.subjectAdulten
dc.subjectAgeden
dc.subjectComputers, Handhelden
dc.subjectEnglanden
dc.subjectFeedbacken
dc.subjectFemaleen
dc.subjectGeneral Practiceen
dc.subjectHumansen
dc.subjectMaleen
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden
dc.subjectPatient Satisfactionen
dc.subjectQualitative Researchen
dc.subjectQuality of Health Careen
dc.subjectSurveys and Questionnairesen
dc.titlePatients' use and views of real-time feedback technology in general practice.en
dc.typeArticle
prism.endingPage433
prism.issueIdentifier3en
prism.publicationDate2016en
prism.publicationNameHealth Expectationsen
prism.startingPage419
prism.volume20en
dc.rioxxterms.funderNIHR
dc.rioxxterms.projectidRP-PG-0608-10050
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-04-05en
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/hex.12469en
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2016-05-16en
dc.contributor.orcidWilson, Ed [0000-0002-8369-1577]
dc.contributor.orcidBurt, Jenni [0000-0002-0037-274X]
dc.contributor.orcidRoland, Martin [0000-0002-8533-3060]
dc.identifier.eissn1369-7625
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen
cam.issuedOnline2016-04-28en
dc.identifier.urlhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/hex.12469en


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International