The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities: Scoping review of the literature

T. S. Jesus; B. Z. Stern; J. Struhar; A. Deutsch; A. W. Heinemann

doi:10.1177/02692155221126690

The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities: Scoping review of the literature

T. S. Jesus^*, B. Z. Stern, J. Struhar, A. Deutsch, A. W. Heinemann

^*Corresponding author for this work

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: 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.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	261-276
Number of pages	16
Journal	Clinical Rehabilitation
Volume	37
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155221126690
State	Published - Feb 2023

Funding

The authors are indebted to the four key informants who provided additional references: Terrence Carolan, Managing Director, Medical Rehabilitation, CARF International, USA; Cheryl Cott, Professor Emerita, University of Toronto, Canada; Nicola Kayes, Professor and Director, Centre for Person-Centred Research, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand; Christina Papadimitriou, Associate Professor, Oakland University, USA. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Tiago Jesus completed this work under an Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant number: 90ARHF0003). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this publication do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, or HHS and endorsement by the US Federal Government should not be assumed. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Tiago Jesus completed this work under an Advanced Rehabilitation Research Training grant from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR grant number: 90ARHF0003). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this publication do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, or HHS and endorsement by the US Federal Government should not be assumed.

Keywords

codesign
patient experience
person-centered care
quality improvement
rehabilitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Access to Document

10.1177/02692155221126690

Cite this

@article{3552fd18f9434732a7c84e1e7e59975c,

title = "The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities: Scoping review of the literature",

abstract = "Objective: 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.",

keywords = "codesign, patient experience, person-centered care, quality improvement, rehabilitation",

author = "Jesus, {T. S.} and Stern, {B. Z.} and J. Struhar and A. Deutsch and Heinemann, {A. W.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2022.",

year = "2023",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1177/02692155221126690",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "37",

pages = "261--276",

journal = "Clinical Rehabilitation",

issn = "0269-2155",

publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities

T2 - Scoping review of the literature

AU - Jesus, T. S.

AU - Stern, B. Z.

AU - Struhar, J.

AU - Deutsch, A.

AU - Heinemann, A. W.

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022.

PY - 2023/2

Y1 - 2023/2

N2 - Objective: 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.

AB - Objective: 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.

KW - codesign

KW - patient experience

KW - person-centered care

KW - quality improvement

KW - rehabilitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138302841&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85138302841&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/02692155221126690

DO - 10.1177/02692155221126690

M3 - Article

C2 - 36112880

AN - SCOPUS:85138302841

SN - 0269-2155

VL - 37

SP - 261

EP - 276

JO - Clinical Rehabilitation

JF - Clinical Rehabilitation

IS - 2

ER -

The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities: Scoping review of the literature

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint