• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Wild data: how front-line hospital staff make sense of patients' experiences.野数据:一线医护人员如何理解患者的体验。
Sociol Health Illn. 2020 Jul;42(6):1424-1440. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13115. Epub 2020 May 31.
2
3
How do frontline staff use patient experience data for service improvement? Findings from an ethnographic case study evaluation.一线工作人员如何利用患者体验数据来改善服务?一项人种学案例研究评估的结果。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2020 Jul;25(3):151-161. doi: 10.1177/1355819619888675. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
4
The patient experience of patient-centered communication with nurses in the hospital setting: a qualitative systematic review protocol.医院环境中患者与护士以患者为中心的沟通体验:一项定性系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Jan;13(1):76-87. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1072.
5
Current experience and future potential of facilitating access to digital NHS primary care services in England: the Di-Facto mixed-methods study.当前在英格兰促进获取数字国民保健服务初级保健服务的经验和未来潜力:Di-Facto 混合方法研究。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Sep;12(32):1-197. doi: 10.3310/JKYT5803.
6
'Team capital' in quality improvement teams: findings from an ethnographic study of front-line quality improvement in the NHS.质量改进团队中的“团队资本”:英国国家医疗服务体系一线质量改进的民族志研究结果。
BMJ Open Qual. 2020 May;9(2). doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2020-000948.
7
Strengthening open disclosure in maternity services in the English NHS: the DISCERN realist evaluation study.加强英国国民保健制度产科服务中的公开披露:DISCERN 现实主义评价研究。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Aug;12(22):1-159. doi: 10.3310/YTDF8015.
8
The emotional labour of quality improvement work in end of life care: a qualitative study of Patient and Family Centred Care (PFCC) in England.生命终末期关怀中质量改进工作的情感劳动:英格兰患者和家庭为中心的关怀(PFCC)的定性研究。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Dec 2;19(1):923. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4762-1.
9
Impact of interventions to improve recovery of older adults following planned hospital admission on quality-of-life following discharge: linked-evidence synthesis.干预措施对改善计划住院的老年患者出院后生活质量的影响:综合证据分析。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Nov;11(23):1-164. doi: 10.3310/GHTY5117.
10
Digital First Primary Care for those with multiple long-term conditions: a rapid review of the views of stakeholders.针对多种慢性病患者的数字优先初级保健:利益相关者观点的快速综述。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Jul;12(21):1-68. doi: 10.3310/AWBT4827.

引用本文的文献

1
'Team ethnography visual maps': Methods for identifying the ethnographic object in multiple sites of fieldwork.“团队民族志视觉地图”:在多个田野调查地点识别民族志研究对象的方法
Ethnography. 2021 Dec;22(4):556-577. doi: 10.1177/14661381211038383. Epub 2021 Nov 14.
2
How do National Health Service (NHS) organisations respond to patient concerns? A qualitative interview study of the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS).英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)组织如何回应患者的关切?患者咨询和联络服务(PALS)的定性访谈研究。
BMJ Open. 2021 Nov 25;11(11):e053239. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053239.
3
Participatory codesign of patient involvement in a Learning Health System: How can data-driven care be patient-driven care?参与式设计让患者参与学习型医疗体系:如何实现数据驱动型医疗服务向患者驱动型医疗服务的转变?
Health Expect. 2022 Feb;25(1):103-115. doi: 10.1111/hex.13345. Epub 2021 Oct 20.
4
Robots in Healthcare? What Patients Say.医疗保健领域的机器人?听听患者怎么说。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Sep 21;18(18):9933. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18189933.

本文引用的文献

1
How do frontline staff use patient experience data for service improvement? Findings from an ethnographic case study evaluation.一线工作人员如何利用患者体验数据来改善服务?一项人种学案例研究评估的结果。
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2020 Jul;25(3):151-161. doi: 10.1177/1355819619888675. Epub 2020 Feb 14.
2
Financialising acute kidney injury: from the practices of care to the numbers of improvement.将急性肾损伤金融化:从护理实践到改善指标。
Sociol Health Illn. 2019 Jun;41(5):882-899. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12868. Epub 2019 Feb 12.
3
What's the problem with patient experience feedback? A macro and micro understanding, based on findings from a three-site UK qualitative study.患者体验反馈存在哪些问题?基于一项英国内三个地点的定性研究结果的宏观和微观理解。
Health Expect. 2019 Feb;22(1):46-53. doi: 10.1111/hex.12829. Epub 2018 Sep 22.
4
VIEWPOINT: What counts as online patient feedback, and for whom?观点:什么可算作在线患者反馈,以及对谁而言?
Digit Health. 2017 Aug 30;3:2055207617728186. doi: 10.1177/2055207617728186. eCollection 2017 Jan-Dec.
5
Making soft intelligence hard: a multi-site qualitative study of challenges relating to voice about safety concerns.使软智能变硬:一项关于与安全顾虑相关的声音的多地点定性研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Sep;27(9):710-717. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007579. Epub 2018 Feb 19.
6
The Patient Feedback Response Framework - Understanding why UK hospital staff find it difficult to make improvements based on patient feedback: A qualitative study.患者反馈响应框架——了解英国医院工作人员为何难以根据患者反馈做出改进:一项定性研究。
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;178:19-27. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.02.005. Epub 2017 Feb 3.
7
Experience in action: Moderating care in web-based patient feedback.实践经验:基于网络的患者反馈中的适度护理
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Feb;175:99-108. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.12.028. Epub 2016 Dec 21.
8
Can we use patient-reported feedback to drive change? The challenges of using patient-reported feedback and how they might be addressed.我们能否利用患者报告的反馈来推动变革?使用患者报告反馈所面临的挑战以及应对这些挑战的方法。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):502-507. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005223. Epub 2016 Jun 20.
9
Beyond metrics? Utilizing 'soft intelligence' for healthcare quality and safety.超越指标?利用“软智能”提升医疗质量与安全。
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Oct;142:19-26. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.027. Epub 2015 Jul 31.
10
Collecting data on patient experience is not enough: they must be used to improve care.收集患者体验数据是不够的:必须利用这些数据来改善医疗服务。
BMJ. 2014 Mar 26;348:g2225. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2225.

野数据:一线医护人员如何理解患者的体验。

Wild data: how front-line hospital staff make sense of patients' experiences.

机构信息

Centre for Biomedicine, Self and Society, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Sociol Health Illn. 2020 Jul;42(6):1424-1440. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13115. Epub 2020 May 31.

DOI:10.1111/1467-9566.13115
PMID:32474965
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8317049/
Abstract

Patient-centred care has become the touchstone of healthcare policy in developed healthcare systems. The ensuing commodification of patients' experiences has resulted in a mass of data but little sense of whether and how such data are used. We sought to understand how front-line staff use patient experience data for quality improvement in the National Health Service (NHS). We conducted a 12-month ethnographic case study evaluation of improvement projects in six NHS hospitals in England in 2016-2017. Drawing on the sociology of everyday life, we show how front-line staff worked with a notion of data as interpersonal and embodied. In addition to consulting organisationally sanctioned forms of data, staff used their own embodied interactions with patients, carers, other staff and the ward environment to shape improvements. The data staff found useful involved face-to-face interaction and dialogue; were visual, emotive, and allowed for immediate action. We draw on de Certeau to re-conceptualise this as 'wild data'. We conclude that patient experience data are relational, and have material, social and affective dimensions, which have been elided in the literature to date. Practice-based theories of the everyday help to envision 'patient experience' not as a disembodied tool of managerialism but as an embedded part of healthcare staff professionalism.

摘要

以患者为中心的护理已成为发达国家医疗保健政策的基石。随之而来的是患者体验的商品化,产生了大量的数据,但对于这些数据是否以及如何被使用,人们知之甚少。我们试图了解一线工作人员如何将患者体验数据用于国民保健制度(NHS)的质量改进。我们在 2016 年至 2017 年期间对英格兰六家 NHS 医院的改进项目进行了为期 12 个月的人种学案例研究评估。我们借鉴日常生活的社会学理论,展示了一线工作人员如何将数据视为人际和体现的概念。除了咨询组织认可的形式化数据外,工作人员还利用自己与患者、护理人员、其他工作人员和病房环境的亲身互动来塑造改进措施。工作人员发现有用的数据涉及面对面的互动和对话;是直观的、情感化的,并能立即采取行动。我们借鉴德塞图的观点,将其重新概念化为“野生数据”。我们的结论是,患者体验数据是关系性的,具有物质、社会和情感维度,这在迄今为止的文献中被忽略了。基于实践的日常理论有助于将“患者体验”视为管理主义的非实体工具,而是医疗保健专业人员的固有组成部分。