Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Oxford University Press, Family Practice, 6(37), p. 821-827, 2020

DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmaa051

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Exploring primary health care professionals’ perceptions about a patient feedback intervention to improve patient safety in Spanish primary health care centres: a qualitative study

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Abstract Background Patient feedback interventions are receiving increasing attention given their potential to improve health care provision. However, primary health care (PHC) professionals’ acceptability and perceived utility of this type of interventions remain largely unexplored. Objectives The aim of this study was to explore PHC professionals’ perceptions, opinions and suggestions about a patient feedback intervention currently being designed to improve patient safety in Spanish PHC centres. Methods We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 43 PHC professionals. Information was obtained from three semi-structured interviews and four focus groups. All data were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis by three analysts. Results The patient feedback intervention was acceptable to health care professionals, who perceived it as a useful strategy to improve health care processes and activate patients. A number of factors potentially limiting the acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention were identified (low patient safety culture, low patient-centred care orientation and limited credibility of patient feedback data). Recommendations for designing and implementing the proposed intervention in the Spanish PHC centres were identified in relation to the following areas: ‘collection and analysis of feedback data’; ‘feedback display’; ‘feedback delivery’ and; ‘implementation of safety improvement initiatives’. Conclusions Although the proposed intervention was generally perceived as useful and acceptable, our study identified a number of tensions about the practical aspects of using the patient-reported data and the credibility of the data and what actions would arise from its use. The intervention has been adapted to address these tensions before its formal evaluation in a randomized clinical trial.