Bastemeijer Carla M, Boosman Hileen, van Ewijk Hans, Verweij Lisanne M, Voogt Lennard, Hazelzet Jan A
MMT, Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Quality & Patient Safety, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2019 May 21;10:157-169. doi: 10.2147/PROM.S201737. eCollection 2019.
In the era of value-based healthcare, one strives for the most optimal outcomes and experiences from the perspective of the patient. So, patient experiences have become a key quality indicator for healthcare. While these are supposed to drive quality improvement (QI), their use and effectiveness for this purpose has been questioned. The aim of this systematic review was to provide insight into QI interventions used in a hospital setting and their effects on improving patient experiences, and possible barriers and promoters for QI work. Prisma guidelines were used to design this review. International academic literature was searched in Embase, Medline OvidSP, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, PubMed Publisher, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. In total, 3,289 studies were retrieved and independently screened by the first two authors for eligibility and methodological quality. Data was extracted on the study purpose, setting, design, targeted patient experience domains, QI strategies, results of QI, barriers, and promotors for QI. Twenty-one pre-post intervention studies were included for review. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Tool. QI strategies used were staff education, patient education, audit and feedback, clinician reminders, organizational change, and policy change. Twenty studies reported improvement in patient experience, 14 studies of the 21 included studies reported statistical significance. Most studies (n=17) reported data-related barriers (eg, questionnaire quality), professional, and/or organizational barriers (eg, skepticism among staff), and 14 studies mentioned specific promoters (eg, engaging staff and patients) for QI. Several patient experience domains are targeted for QI using diverse strategies and methodological approaches. Most studies reported at least one improvement and also barriers and promoters that may influence QI work. Future research should address these barriers and promoters in order to enhance methodological quality and improve patient experiences.
在基于价值的医疗时代,人们从患者的角度追求最优化的结果和体验。因此,患者体验已成为医疗质量的关键指标。虽然这些指标本应推动质量改进(QI),但其在此目的上的使用和有效性受到了质疑。本系统评价的目的是深入了解医院环境中使用的质量改进干预措施及其对改善患者体验的影响,以及质量改进工作可能存在的障碍和促进因素。采用Prisma指南设计本评价。在Embase、Medline OvidSP、Web of Science、Cochrane Central、PubMed Publisher、Scopus、PsycInfo和谷歌学术中检索国际学术文献。总共检索到3289项研究,前两位作者独立筛选其是否符合纳入标准和方法学质量。提取了关于研究目的、背景、设计、目标患者体验领域、质量改进策略、质量改进结果、障碍和质量改进促进因素的数据。纳入21项干预前后研究进行综述。使用批判性评估技能计划(CASP)工具评估纳入研究的方法学质量。使用的质量改进策略包括员工教育、患者教育、审核与反馈、临床医生提醒、组织变革和政策变革。20项研究报告患者体验有所改善,21项纳入研究中的14项报告具有统计学意义。大多数研究(n = 17)报告了与数据相关的障碍(如问卷质量)、专业和/或组织障碍(如员工的怀疑态度),14项研究提到了质量改进的具体促进因素(如让员工和患者参与)。使用不同的策略和方法学方法针对几个患者体验领域进行质量改进。大多数研究报告了至少一项改进,以及可能影响质量改进工作的障碍和促进因素。未来的研究应解决这些障碍和促进因素,以提高方法学质量并改善患者体验。