CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 273Patient Satisfaction in HealthcareSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningSocial Media in Health Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Harnessing the cloud of patient experience: using social media to detect poor quality healthcare

Greaves, Felix, Ramirez-Cano, Daniel, Millett, Christopher, Darzi, Ara, Donaldson, Liam·2013·BMJ Quality & Safety
DOI 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001527
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent years have seen increasing interest in patient-centred care and calls to focus on improving the patient experience. At the same time, a growing number of patients are using the internet to describe their experiences of healthcare. We believe the increasing availability of patients’ accounts of their care on blogs, social networks, Twitter and hospital review sites presents an intriguing opportunity to advance the patient-centred care agenda and provide novel quality of care data. We describe this concept as a ‘cloud of patient experience’. In this commentary, we outline the ways in which the collection and aggregation of patients’ descriptions of their experiences on the internet could be used to detect poor clinical care. Over time, such an approach could also identify excellence and allow it to be built on. We suggest using the techniques of natural language processing and sentiment analysis to transform unstructured descriptions of patient experience on the internet into usable measures of healthcare performance. We consider the various sources of information that could be used, the limitations of the approach and discuss whether these new techniques could detect poor performance before conventional measures of healthcare quality.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001527

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cambria E Hussain A Havasi C . Towards the crowd validation of the British National Health Service. Proceedings of WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line; 26–27 April 2010, Raleigh, NC, USA, 2010.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 273

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Greaves, F., Ramirez-Cano, D., Millett, C., Darzi, A., & Donaldson, L.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Greaves, Felix
ORCID
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-01-24
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
251-255
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
DOI
10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001527
OpenAlex
W2144127426
Cited by
272
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 14
FWCI
49.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0510-10186, ACF-2009-21-030)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
Keywords
patient experience, social media, quality of care, patient-centered care, online patient reviews, blogs, Twitter, natural language processing, sentiment analysis, healthcare performance measurement
MeSH terms
Humans, Inpatients, National Health Programs, Quality of Health Care, Patient Satisfaction, Patient-Centered Care, Social Media

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