Characteristics of positive feedback provided by UK health service users: content analysis of examples from two databases

IF 4.1 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Rebecca Lloyd, Mike Slade, Richard Byng, Alex Russell, Fiona Ng, Alex Stirzaker, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone
{"title":"Characteristics of positive feedback provided by UK health service users: content analysis of examples from two databases","authors":"Rebecca Lloyd, Mike Slade, Richard Byng, Alex Russell, Fiona Ng, Alex Stirzaker, Stefan Rennick-Egglestone","doi":"10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Most feedback received by health services is positive. Our systematic scoping review mapped all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates healthcare change. Most included papers did not provide specific details on positive feedback characteristics.Objectives Describe positive feedback characteristics by (1) developing heuristics for identifying positive feedback; (2) sharing annotated feedback examples; (3) describing their positive content.Methods 200 items were selected from two contrasting databases: (1) https://careopinion.org.uk/; (2) National Health Service (NHS) Friends and Family Test data collected by an NHS trust. Preliminary heuristics and positive feedback categories were developed from a small convenience sample, and iteratively refined.Results Categories were identified: positive-only; mixed; narrative; factual; grateful. We propose a typology describing tone (positive-only, mixed), form (factual, narrative) and intent (grateful). Separating positive and negative elements in mixed feedback was sometimes impossible due to ambiguity. Narrative feedback often described the cumulative impact of interactions with healthcare providers, healthcare professionals, influential individuals and community organisations. Grateful feedback was targeted at individual staff or entire units, but the target was sometimes ambiguous.Conclusion People commissioning feedback collection systems should consider mechanisms to maximise utility by limiting ambiguity. Since being enabled to provide narrative feedback can allow contributors to make contextualised statements about what worked for them and why, then there may be trade-offs to negotiate between limiting ambiguity, and encouraging rich narratives. Groups tasked with using feedback should plan the human resources needed for careful inspection, and consider providing narrative analysis training.","PeriodicalId":9050,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","volume":"115 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Health & Care Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Most feedback received by health services is positive. Our systematic scoping review mapped all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates healthcare change. Most included papers did not provide specific details on positive feedback characteristics.Objectives Describe positive feedback characteristics by (1) developing heuristics for identifying positive feedback; (2) sharing annotated feedback examples; (3) describing their positive content.Methods 200 items were selected from two contrasting databases: (1) https://careopinion.org.uk/; (2) National Health Service (NHS) Friends and Family Test data collected by an NHS trust. Preliminary heuristics and positive feedback categories were developed from a small convenience sample, and iteratively refined.Results Categories were identified: positive-only; mixed; narrative; factual; grateful. We propose a typology describing tone (positive-only, mixed), form (factual, narrative) and intent (grateful). Separating positive and negative elements in mixed feedback was sometimes impossible due to ambiguity. Narrative feedback often described the cumulative impact of interactions with healthcare providers, healthcare professionals, influential individuals and community organisations. Grateful feedback was targeted at individual staff or entire units, but the target was sometimes ambiguous.Conclusion People commissioning feedback collection systems should consider mechanisms to maximise utility by limiting ambiguity. Since being enabled to provide narrative feedback can allow contributors to make contextualised statements about what worked for them and why, then there may be trade-offs to negotiate between limiting ambiguity, and encouraging rich narratives. Groups tasked with using feedback should plan the human resources needed for careful inspection, and consider providing narrative analysis training.
英国医疗服务用户提供的积极反馈的特点:对两个数据库中实例的内容分析
背景 医疗服务机构收到的大多数反馈都是积极的。我们的系统性范围界定综述绘制了所有可用的实证证据,以说明患者的积极反馈如何促进医疗服务的改变。大多数收录的论文都没有提供关于积极反馈特征的具体细节。目标 通过以下方法描述积极反馈的特征:(1)开发用于识别积极反馈的启发式方法;(2)分享带注释的反馈示例;(3)描述其积极内容。方法 从两个对比数据库中选取了 200 个项目:(1)https://careopinion.org.uk/;(2)由一家 NHS 信托公司收集的国民健康服务(NHS)"朋友和家人 "测试数据。结果 确定了以下类别:正面反馈;混合反馈;叙述性反馈;事实性反馈;感谢性反馈。我们提出了一种描述语气(纯正面、混合)、形式(事实、叙述)和意图(感激)的类型学。由于模糊不清,有时无法区分混合反馈中的积极和消极因素。叙述性反馈通常描述的是与医疗服务提供者、医疗专业人员、有影响力的个人和社区组织互动的累积影响。感恩反馈针对的是个别员工或整个单位,但目标有时并不明确。由于能够提供叙述性反馈意见可以让反馈者根据具体情况说明什么对他们有效以及为什么有效,因此可能需要在限制模糊性和鼓励丰富的叙述之间进行权衡。负责使用反馈的小组应规划仔细检查所需的人力资源,并考虑提供叙事分析培训。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
4.90%
发文量
40
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信