The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings
Open accessAbstract
Objectives: Explore how patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are collected, communicated and used to inform quality improvement (QI) across healthcare settings. Design: Systematic review. Setting: Various primary and secondary care settings, including general practice, and acute and chronic care hospitals. Participants: A full range of patient populations from (children through to the elderly) and staff (from healthcare practitioners to senior managers). Methods: Scientific databases were searched (CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Libraries) as was grey literature. Qualitative and quantitative studies describing collection of PREM data and subsequent QI actions in any healthcare setting were included. Risk of bias was assessed using established criteria. Of 5312 initial hits, 32 full texts were screened, and 11 were included. Results: Patient experience data were most commonly collected through surveys and used to identify small areas of incremental change to services that do not require a change to clinician behaviour (eg, changes to admission processes and producing educational materials). While staff in most studies reported having made effective improvements, authors struggled to identify what those changes were or the impact they had. Conclusions: Findings suggest there is no single best way to collect or use PREM data for QI, but they do suggest some key points to consider when planning such an approach. For instance, formal training is recommended, as a lack of expertise in QI and confidence in interpreting patient experience data effectively may continue to be a barrier to a successful shift towards a more patient-centred healthcare service. In the context of QI, more attention is required on how patient experience data will be used to inform changes to practice and, in turn, measure any impact these changes may have on patient experience.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Baker, A. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192 · Cited by 10,736
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
Tacconelli, E. (2010) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(10)70065-7 · Cited by 3,245
Doyle, C., Lennox, L., & Bell, D. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570 · Cited by 2,425
Leavitt, M. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 1,862
Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care
Coulter, A., Locock, L., Ziebland, S., & Calabrese, J. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g2225 · Cited by 409
analysis & commentary Measuring Patient Experience As A Strategy For Improving Primary Care
Browne, K., Roseman, D., Shaller, D., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (2010) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2010.0238 · Cited by 305
Tsianakas, V., Robert, G., Maben, J., Richardson, A., Dale, C., & Wiseman, T. (2012) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-012-1470-3 · Cited by 197
Hearing the patient's voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement
Davies, E. (2005) · Quality and Safety in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.012955 · Cited by 182
Groene, O. (2011) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzr058 · Cited by 162
Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews Final Report
Jrh, P., Roberts, H. M., Aj, S., Petticrew, M. P., Britten, N., Arai, L., Roen, K., & Rodgers, M. E. (2005) · Cited by 152
Cited by
Migchels, C., Zerrouk, A., Crunelle, C. L., Matthys, F., Gremeaux, L., Fernandez, K., Antoine, J., van den Brink, W., & Vanderplasschen, W. (2023) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2023.111017 · Cited by 43
West, T. H. R., Daher, P., Dawson, J. F., Lyubovnikova, J., Buttigieg, S. C., & West, M. A. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052778 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Gleeson, H., Calderon, A., Swami, V., Deighton, J., Wolpert, M., & Edbrooke-Childs, J.
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e011907
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2514535740
- Cited by
- 287
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 3.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011907
- The paper
- Gleeson, H., Calderon, A., Swami, V., Deighton, J., Wolpert, M., & Edbrooke-Childs, J. (2016). Systematic review of approaches to using patient experience data for quality improvement in healthcare settings. BMJ Open. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011907
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.