RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities
Scoping review of the literature
Jesus, T. S., Stern, B. Z., Struhar, J., Deutsch, A., & Heinemann, A. W. (2023). The use of patient experience feedback in rehabilitation quality improvement and codesign activities: Scoping review of the literature. Clinical Rehabilitation, 37(2), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155221126690
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.
