To characterize the literature, reported enablers, and gaps on the use of patient experience feedback for person-centered rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities.
Design
Scoping Review.
Data sources
Scientific databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Rehabdata, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest), website searches (e.g. Beryl Institute), snowballing, and key-informant recommendations.
Methods
Two independent reviewers performed title and abstract screenings and full-text reviews. Eligibility focused on English-language, peer-reviewed (all time) and gray literature (last five years) that used patient experience feedback in rehabilitation improvement activities. The aims, settings, methods, findings, implications, and reported limitations were extracted, followed by content analyses identifying reported enablers and gaps.
Results
Among the 901 unique references and 52 full texts reviewed, ten were included: four used patient experience surveys for improving patient experiences; six used codesign methodologies to engage patient feedback in service improvement activities. Implementation enablers included securing managerial support, having a structured methodology and facilitator, using efficient processes, engaging staff experiences, and using appreciative inquiry. Reported study gaps included limited follow-up, low sample sizes, analytical limitations, lack of reported limitations, or narrow range of perspectives (e.g. not from people with severe impairments).
Conclusion
Few examples of the use of patient experience feedback in quality improvement or codesign activities were found in the rehabilitation literature. Patient experience improvement activities relied exclusively on retrospective survey data, which were not combined with often more actionable forms (e.g. qualitative, real time) of patient experience feedback. Further research might consider design of activities that collect and use patient experience feedback for rehabilitation service improvements.
CoulterALocockLZieblandS,et al.Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care. BMJ (Clin Res ed)2014; 348: g2225.
2.
GleesonHCalderonASwamiV,et al.Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings. BMJ Open2016; 6: e011907.
3.
GualandiRMasellaCPireddaM,et al.What does the patient have to say? Valuing the patient experience to improve the patient journey. BMC Health Serv Res2021; 21: 347.
4.
BalbaleSNLocatelliSMLaVelaSL. Through their eyes: lessons learned using participatory methods in health care quality improvement projects. Qual Health Res2016; 26: 1382–1392.
5.
BergerumCEngströmAKThorJ,et al.Patient involvement in quality improvement - a 'tug of war' or a dialogue in a learning process to improve healthcare?BMC Health Serv Res2020; 20: 1115.
6.
JesusTSPapadimitriouCBrightFA,et al.Person-centered rehabilitation model: framing the concept and practice of person-centered adult physical rehabilitation based on a scoping review and thematic analysis of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2022; 103: 106–120.
7.
LaVelaSLBalbaleSHillJN. Experience and utility of using the participatory research method, photovoice, in individuals with spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil2018; 24: 295–305.
8.
ClarkeDJonesFHarrisR,et al.What outcomes are associated with developing and implementing co-produced interventions in acute healthcare settings? A rapid evidence synthesis. BMJ Open2017; 7: e014650.
9.
PalmerVJWeavellWCallanderR, et al.The participatory zeitgeist: an explanatory theoretical model of change in an era of coproduction and codesign in healthcare improvement. Med Humanit2019; 45: 247–257.
10.
FuscoFMarsilioMGuglielmettiC. Co-production in health policy and management: a comprehensive bibliometric review. BMC Health Serv Res2020; 20: 504.
11.
SlatteryPSaeriAKBraggeP. Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews. Health Res Policy Syst2020; 18: 17.
12.
LloydNKennyAHyettN. Evaluating health service outcomes of public involvement in health service design in high-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res2021; 21: 364.
13.
BergerumCThorJJosefssonK,et al.How might patient involvement in healthcare quality improvement efforts work-a realist literature review. Health Expect2019; 22: 952–964.
14.
Daouk-ÖyryLAlameddineMHassanN,et al.The catalytic role of mystery patient tools in shaping patient experience: a method to facilitate value co-creation using action research. PLoS One2018; 13: e0205262.
15.
MellesMAlbayrakAGoossensR. Innovating health care: key characteristics of human-centered design. Int J Qual Health Care2021; 33: 37–44.
16.
PhoenixMMollS. Realizing the potential of co-design to build innovation in rehabilitation services. Physiother Canada2021; 73: 299–300.
17.
RobertGCornwellJLocockL,et al.Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services. BMJ (Clin Res ed)2015; 350: g7714.
18.
KiranTTepperJGavinF. Working with patients to improve care. CMAJ2020; 192: E125–E127.
19.
JesusTSHoenigH. Postacute rehabilitation quality of care: toward a shared conceptual framework. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2015; 96: 960–969.
20.
GreenTBonnerATeleniL, et al.Use and reporting of experience-based codesign studies in the healthcare setting: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf2020; 29: 64–76.
21.
JonesFGombertKHoneyS, et al.Addressing inactivity after stroke: the collaborative rehabilitation in acute stroke (CREATE) study. Int J Stroke2021; 16: 669–682.
22.
BastemeijerCMBoosmanHvan EwijkH,et al.Patient experiences: a systematic review of quality improvement interventions in a hospital setting. Patient Relat Outcome Meas2019; 10: 157–169.
23.
KhanbhaiMFlottKDarziA,et al.Evaluating digital maturity and patient acceptability of real-time patient experience feedback systems: systematic review. J Med Internet Res2019; 21: e9076.
24.
KumahEOsei-KesseFAnabaC. Understanding and using patient experience feedback to improve health care quality: systematic review and framework development. J Patient Cent Res Rev2017; 4: 24–31.
25.
NavarroSOchoaCYChanE,et al.Will improvements in patient experience with care impact clinical and quality of care outcomes?: a systematic review. Med Care2021; 59: 843–856.
26.
BainesRRegan De BereSStevensS, et al.The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ2018; 18: 173.
27.
WongEMavondoFFisherJ. Patient feedback to improve quality of patient-centred care in public hospitals: a systematic review of the evidence. BMC Health Serv Res2020; 20: 530.
28.
JesusTSPapadimitriouCPinhoCS,et al.Key characteristics of rehabilitation quality improvement publications: scoping review from 2010 to 2016. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2018; 99: 1141–1148.e4.
29.
JesusTSBrightFAPinhoCS,et al.Scoping review of the person-centered literature in adult physical rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil2021; 43: 1626–1636.
30.
GillSDDolleyPJDunningTL,et al.Evaluating health services with point of service feedback: perspectives and experiences of patients, staff and community volunteers in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Disabil Rehabil2015; 37: 1997–2005.
31.
WilliamsSTurnerAMBeadleH. Experience-based co-design to improve a pulmonary rehabilitation programme. Int J Health Care Qual Assur2019; 32: 778–787.
32.
LevacDColquhounHO'BrienKK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci2010; 5: 69.
33.
ColquhounHLLevacDO'BrienKK, et al.Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol2014; 67: 1291–1294.
34.
TriccoACLillieEZarinW, et al.PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med2018; 169: 467–473.
35.
PetersMDJMarnieCTriccoAC, et al.Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Implement2020; 18: 2119–2126.
36.
JesusTSGianolaSCastelliniG,et al.Evolving trends in physiotherapy research publications between 1995 and 2015. Physiother Can2020; 72: 122–131.
37.
JesusTSHoenigHLandryMD. Development of the rehabilitation health policy, systems, and services research field: quantitative analyses of publications over time (1990-2017) and across country type. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 965.
HorwitzLIKuznetsovaMJonesSA. Creating a learning health system through rapid-cycle, randomized testing. N Engl J Med2019; 381: 1175–1179.
40.
RosenCSDavisCARiggsD, et al.Targeted assessment and context-tailored implementation of change strategies (TACTICS) to increase evidence based psychotherapy in military behavioral health clinics: design of a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge implementation study. Contemp Clin Trials2020; 93: 106008.
41.
LeemanJRohwederCLeeM, et al.Aligning implementation science with improvement practice: a call to action. Implement Sci Commun2021; 2: 99.
42.
PortelaMCPronovostPJWoodcockT,et al.How to study improvement interventions: a brief overview of possible study types. BMJ Qual Saf2015; 24: 325–336.
43.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. What is patient experience?2021.
44.
LindblomSFlinkMElfM,et al.The manifestation of participation within a co-design process involving patients, significant others and health-care professionals. Health Expect2021; 24: 905–916.
MeyerTGutenbrunnerCBickenbachJ,et al.Towards a conceptual description of rehabilitation as a health strategy. J Rehabil Med2011; 43: 765–769.
47.
HsiehHFShannonSE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res2005; 15: 1277–1288.
48.
HaririA. Improving patient satisfaction at an inpatient rehabilitation facility. PhD Thesis. Grand Canyon University, Phoenix, AZ, 2020.
49.
Marianjoy Rehabilitation Hospital. Case study: patient & family connections in a no touch world. 2020.
50.
RobertsL. Improving quality, service delivery and patient experience in a musculoskeletal service. Man Ther2013; 18: 77–82.
51.
StrongSBettinA. An initiative to improve patient discharge satisfaction. Rehabil Nurs2015; 40: 52–59.
52.
GalvinKTPoundCCowdellF, et al.A lifeworld theory-led action research process for humanizing services: improving “what matters” to older people to enhance humanly sensitive care. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-Being2020; 15: 1817275.
53.
AabyASimonsenCBRyomK,et al.Improving organizational health literacy responsiveness in cardiac rehabilitation using a co-design methodology: results from the heart skills study. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 1015.
54.
MäkeläPJonesFDe Sousa De AbreuMI,et al.Supporting self-management after traumatic brain injury: codesign and evaluation of a new intervention across a trauma pathway. Health Expect2019; 22: 632–642.
55.
ClarkeDGombert-WaldronKHoneyS, et al.Co-designing organisational improvements and interventions to increase inpatient activity in four stroke units in England: a mixed-methods process evaluation using normalisation process theory. BMJ Open2021; 11: e042723.
56.
GrobRSchlesingerMBarreLR, et al.What words convey: the potential for patient narratives to inform quality improvement. Milbank Q2019; 97: 176–227.
57.
GreenhalghJDalkinSGoodingK, et al.Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2017.
58.
GriffithsALeaverMP. Wisdom of patients: predicting the quality of care using aggregated patient feedback. BMJ Qual Saf2018; 27: 110–118.
59.
LocockLGrahamCKingJ, et al.Understanding how front-line staff use patient experience data for service improvement: an exploratory case study evaluation. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2020.
60.
WeichSFentonSJStaniszewskaS, et al.Using patient experience data to support improvements in inpatient mental health care: the EURIPIDES multimethod study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2020.
61.
FowlerFJJrCosenzaCCrippsLA,et al.The effect of administration mode on CAHPS survey response rates and results: a comparison of mail and web-based approaches. Health Serv Res. 2019; 54: 714–721.
62.
MarshCPeacockRSheardL,et al.Patient experience feedback in UK hospitals: what types are available and what are their potential roles in quality improvement (QI)?Health Expect2019; 22: 317–326.
63.
RobertGSarreSMabenJ,et al.Exploring the sustainability of quality improvement interventions in healthcare organisations: a multiple methods study of the 10-year impact of the 'productive ward: releasing time to care' programme in English acute hospitals. BMJ Qual Saf2020; 29: 31–40.
64.
BurtJCampbellJAbelG, et al.Improving patient experience in primary care: a multimethod programme of research on the measurement and improvement of patient experience. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2017.
65.
PowellJAthertonHWilliamsV, et al.Using online patient feedback to improve NHS services: the INQUIRE multimethod study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2019.
66.
SandersCNaharPSmallN, et al.Digital methods to enhance the usefulness of patient experience data in services for long-term conditions: the DEPEND mixed-methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2020.
67.
DonettoSDesaiAZoccatelliG, et al.Organisational strategies and practices to improve care using patient experience data in acute NHS hospital trusts: an ethnographic study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2019.
68.
SarreSMabenJGriffithsP,et al.The 10-year impact of a ward-level quality improvement intervention in acute hospitals: a multiple methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library, 2019.
69.
MulvaleGMollSMiatelloA, et al.Codesigning health and other public services with vulnerable and disadvantaged populations: insights from an international collaboration. Health Expect2019; 22: 284–297.
70.
KaleyAHattonCMilliganC. More than words: the use of video in ethnographic research with people with intellectual disabilities. Qual Health Res2019; 29: 931–943.
71.
RiosDMagasiSNovakC,et al.Conducting accessible research: including people with disabilities in public health, epidemiological, and outcomes studies. Am J Public Health2016; 106: 2137–2144.
72.
JesusTSKamalakannanSBhattacharjyaS, et al.PREparedness, REsponse and SySTemic transformation (PRE-RE-SyST): a model for disability-inclusive pandemic responses and systemic disparities reduction derived from a scoping review and thematic analysis. Int J Equity Health2021; 20: 204.
73.
HeeringsMVan De BovenkampHCardolM,et al.Ask us! Adjusting experience-based codesign to be responsive to people with intellectual disabilities, serious mental illness or older persons receiving support with independent living. Health Expect2022. Online ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13436.
74.
StaffordCD2ndKeittFIrvinL. Health disparities in the management of ACL injuries: how socioeconomic status, insurance, and race influence care. PM & R2022; 14: 669–677.
75.
JesusTSKamalakannanSBhattacharjyaS, et al.People with disabilities and other forms of vulnerability to the COVID-19 pandemic: study protocol for a scoping review and thematic analysis. Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl2020; 2(4): 100079.
76.
HarbmanPBryant-LukosiusDMartin-MisenerR, et al.Partners in research: building academic-practice partnerships to educate and mentor advanced practice nurses. J Eval Clin Pract2017; 23: 382–390.
77.
RapportFSmithJHutchinsonK, et al.Too much theory and not enough practice? The challenge of implementation science application in healthcare practice. J Eval Clin Pract2021. Online ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/jep.13600.
78.
LloydR. Building improvement capacity and capability: a “dosing” approach guides and targets organizationwide learning. Institute for Healthcare Improvement, 2018, pp. 68–67.
79.
OgrincGDaviesLGoodmanD,et al.SQUIRE 2.0 (standards for quality improvement reporting excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf2016; 25: 986–992.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
