Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ The International Jo...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
The International Journal of Health Planning and Management
Article . 2024 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Implementing a real‐time patient experience feedback in inpatient rehabilitation: Process evaluation informed by the normalisation process theory

Authors: Jan Struhar; Taylor Walters; Kristen Gracz; Mansi Sheth; Andrea Fernandez; Courtney Lopez; Tiago S. Jesus;

Implementing a real‐time patient experience feedback in inpatient rehabilitation: Process evaluation informed by the normalisation process theory

Abstract

AbstractPurposeNear real‐time patient experience feedback (NRTPEF) can enable a patient‐centric, immediate service recovery but has not been widely used in inpatient rehabilitation. We 1) assess the utility, feasibility, and acceptability of implementing a new NRTPEF, perceived by patients and providers; and 2) understand how the NRTPEF became embedded into routine provider practices.Materials and MethodsMixed methods process evaluation of the 8‐month implementation of an innovative NRTPEF in an inpatient rehabilitation unit, using interviews and focus groups with all the service‐unit leaders and interviews with a randomised sample of patients. Beyond descriptive statistics and content analysis, the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed a framework analysis.ResultsPatients and service‐unit leaders perceived high utility in the NRTPEF (median: 9 for both; 0–10 scale) and qualitative comments emphasised the value of providing/obtaining timely feedback. The system was found feasible and acceptable for patients (median: 9.5), but with an improvement margin for providers (median: 7.3). Suggestions include strengthening the data‐relay format. Even in the pilot form, providers found the NRTPEF became embedded into practice (median 10; average: 8.6). The analysis based on the NPT shows how providers saw differential value, engaged with, and used the patient feedback into reconfigured practices.ConclusionAn innovative NRTPEF was found useful, feasible and acceptable, but with refinement opportunities before scale‐up.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Male, Adult, Inpatients, Process Assessment, Health Care, Rehabilitation, Focus Groups, Middle Aged, Rehabilitation Centers, Feedback, Interviews as Topic, Patient Satisfaction, Humans, Feasibility Studies, Female, Qualitative Research, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    3
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
3
Top 10%
Average
Average
hybrid