The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Hearing the patient's voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for understanding factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with senior health professionals and managers and a review of the literature. SETTING: A quality improvement collaborative in Minnesota, USA involving teams from eight medical groups, focusing on how to use patient survey data to improve patient centred care. PARTICIPANTS: Eight team leaders (medical, clinical improvement or service quality directors) and six team members (clinical improvement coordinators and managers). RESULTS: Respondents reported three types of barriers before the collaborative: organisational, professional and data related. Organisational barriers included lack of supporting values for patient centred care, competing priorities, and lack of an effective quality improvement infrastructure. Professional barriers included clinicians and staff not being used to focusing on patient interaction as a quality issue, individuals not necessarily having been selected, trained or supported to provide patient centred care, and scepticism, defensiveness or resistance to change following feedback. Data related barriers included lack of expertise with survey data, lack of timely and specific results, uncertainty over the effective interventions or time frames for improvement, and consequent risk of perceived low cost effectiveness of data collection. Factors that appeared to have promoted data use included board led strategies to change culture and create quality improvement forums, leadership from senior physicians and managers, and the persistence of quality improvement staff over several years in demonstrating change in other areas. CONCLUSION: Using patient survey data may require a more concerted effort than for other clinical data. Organisations may need to develop cultures that support patient centred care, quality improvement capacity, and to align professional receptiveness and leadership with technical expertise with the data.
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
Cited by
Ruger, J. P. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)17064-5 · Cited by 465
Patient Engagement—What Works?
Coulter, A. (2012) · Journal of Ambulatory Care Management · doi:10.1097/jac.0b013e318249e0fd · Cited by 450
Gleeson, H., Calderon, A., Swami, V., Deighton, J., Wolpert, M., & Edbrooke-Childs, J. (2016) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011907 · Cited by 287
Vincent, C., & Amalberti, R. (2016) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25559-0 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- Authors
- Davies, E.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 428-432
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2152441182
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Hearing the patient's voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/qshc.2004.012955
- The paper
- Davies, E. (2005). Hearing the patient's voice? Factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement. Quality and Safety in Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2004.012955
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.