Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Care | Research article

Implementing a digital patient feedback system: an analysis using normalisation process theory

Authors: Bie Nio Ong, Damian Hodgson, Nicola Small, Papreen Nahar, Caroline Sanders

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Patient feedback in the English NHS is now widespread and digital methods are increasingly used. Adoption of digital methods depends on socio-technical and contextual factors, alongside human agency and lived experience. Moreover, the introduction of these methods may be perceived as disruptive of organisational and clinical routines. The focus of this paper is on the implementation of a particular digital feedback intervention that was co-designed with health professionals and patients (the DEPEND study).

Methods

The digital feedback intervention was conceptualised as a complex intervention and thus the study focused on the contexts within which it operated, and how the different participants made sense of the intervention and engaged with it (or not). Four health care sites were studied: an acute setting, a mental health setting, and two general practices. Qualitative data was collected through interviews and focus groups with professionals, patients and carers. In total 51 staff, 24 patients and 8 carers were included. Forty-two observations of the use of the digital feedback system were carried out in the four settings. Data analysis was based on modified grounded theory and Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) formed the conceptual framework.

Results

Digital feedback made sense to health care staff as it was seen as attractive, fast to complete and easier to analyse. Patients had a range of views depending on their familiarity with the digital world. Patients mentioned barriers such as kiosk not being visible, privacy, lack of digital know-how, technical hitches with the touchscreen. Collective action in maintaining participation again differed between sites because of workload pressure, perceptions of roles and responsibilities; and in the mental health site major organisational change was taking place. For mental health service users, their relationship with staff and their own health status determined their digital use.

Conclusion

The potential of digital feedback was recognised but implementation should take local contexts, different patient groups and organisational leadership into account. Patient involvement in change and adaptation of the intervention was important in enhancing the embedding of digital methods in routine feedback. NPT allowed for a in-depth understanding of actions and interactions of both staff and patients.
Footnotes
1
1 The text mining programmes were developed and tested using retrospective patient experience data Available for download via the following link http://​gnteam.​cs.​manchester.​ac.​uk/​depend/​
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Campbell J, Smith P, Nissen S, Bower P, Elliott M, Roland M. The GP patient survey for use in primary care in the National Health Service in the UK - development and psychometric characteristics. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:57.CrossRef Campbell J, Smith P, Nissen S, Bower P, Elliott M, Roland M. The GP patient survey for use in primary care in the National Health Service in the UK - development and psychometric characteristics. BMC Fam Pract. 2009;10:57.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Francis R. Report of the mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation trust public inquiry. London: The Stationery office; 2013. Francis R. Report of the mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation trust public inquiry. London: The Stationery office; 2013.
4.
go back to reference Berwick D. A promise to learn – a commitment to act: improving the safety of patients in England. London: Department of Health; 2013. Berwick D. A promise to learn – a commitment to act: improving the safety of patients in England. London: Department of Health; 2013.
7.
go back to reference Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, Collins LM, Doherty A, Hollis C, Rivera DE, West R, Wyatt JC. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions & approaches. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):843–51.CrossRef Murray E, Hekler EB, Andersson G, Collins LM, Doherty A, Hollis C, Rivera DE, West R, Wyatt JC. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions & approaches. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):843–51.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Morton K, Dennison L, May C, Murray E, Little P, McManus RJ, Yardley L. Using digital interevntions for self-management of chronic physical health conditions: a meta-ethnography review of published studies. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(4):616–35.CrossRef Morton K, Dennison L, May C, Murray E, Little P, McManus RJ, Yardley L. Using digital interevntions for self-management of chronic physical health conditions: a meta-ethnography review of published studies. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(4):616–35.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Powell J, Boylan A-M, Greaves F. Harnessing patient feddback data: a challenge for policy and service. Editorial Digit Health. 2015;1:1–3. Powell J, Boylan A-M, Greaves F. Harnessing patient feddback data: a challenge for policy and service. Editorial Digit Health. 2015;1:1–3.
11.
go back to reference Latif A, Waring J, Pollock K, Solomon J, Gulzar N, Choudary S, Anderson C. Towards equity: a qualitative exploration of the implementation and impact of a digital educational intervention for pharmacy professionals in England. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18:151.CrossRef Latif A, Waring J, Pollock K, Solomon J, Gulzar N, Choudary S, Anderson C. Towards equity: a qualitative exploration of the implementation and impact of a digital educational intervention for pharmacy professionals in England. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18:151.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, Fitzpatrick R, Knapp M, Barlow J, Hendy J, Chrysanthaki T, Bardsley M, Newman SP. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the whole system demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:220.CrossRef Sanders C, Rogers A, Bowen R, Bower P, Hirani S, Cartwright M, Fitzpatrick R, Knapp M, Barlow J, Hendy J, Chrysanthaki T, Bardsley M, Newman SP. Exploring barriers to participation and adoption of telehealth and telecare within the whole system demonstrator trial: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:220.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Neves Barbosa B, Amaro F, Fonseca J. Coming of (old) age in the digital age: ICT usage and non-usage among older adults. Soc Res Online. 2013;18(2):6. Neves Barbosa B, Amaro F, Fonseca J. Coming of (old) age in the digital age: ICT usage and non-usage among older adults. Soc Res Online. 2013;18(2):6.
14.
go back to reference Coulter A, Locock L, Ziebland S, Calabrese J. Collecting data on patient experience is not enough. BMJ. 2014;348:g2225.CrossRef Coulter A, Locock L, Ziebland S, Calabrese J. Collecting data on patient experience is not enough. BMJ. 2014;348:g2225.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Desai A, Zoccatelli G, Adams M, Allen D, Brearley S, Rafferty AM, Donnetto S. Taking data seriously: the value of actor-network theory in rethinking patient experience data. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2017;22(2):134–6.CrossRef Desai A, Zoccatelli G, Adams M, Allen D, Brearley S, Rafferty AM, Donnetto S. Taking data seriously: the value of actor-network theory in rethinking patient experience data. J Health Serv Res Pol. 2017;22(2):134–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Martin PG, McKee L, Dixon-Woods M. Beyond metrics? Utilizing ‘soft intelligence’ for healthcare quality and safety. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:19–26.CrossRef Martin PG, McKee L, Dixon-Woods M. Beyond metrics? Utilizing ‘soft intelligence’ for healthcare quality and safety. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:19–26.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Gude WT, Roos-Blom M-J, van der Veer S, Dongelmans DA, de Jonge E, Francis J, Peek N, de Keizer NF. Health professionals’ perceptions about their clinical performance and the influence of audit and feedback on their intentions to improve practice: a theory-based study in Dutch intensive care units. Implement Sci. 2018;13:33.CrossRef Gude WT, Roos-Blom M-J, van der Veer S, Dongelmans DA, de Jonge E, Francis J, Peek N, de Keizer NF. Health professionals’ perceptions about their clinical performance and the influence of audit and feedback on their intentions to improve practice: a theory-based study in Dutch intensive care units. Implement Sci. 2018;13:33.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRef Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, Baird J. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2015;350:h1258.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Damschroder L, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Impl Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRef Damschroder L, Aron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Impl Sci. 2009;4:50.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.CrossRef Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A’Court C, Hinder S, Fahy N, Proctor R, Shaw S. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367.CrossRef Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Papoutsi C, Lynch J, Hughes G, A’Court C, Hinder S, Fahy N, Proctor R, Shaw S. Beyond adoption: A new framework for theorizing and evaluating nonadoption, abandonment, and challenges to the scale-up, spread and sustainability of health and care technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e367.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference May C, Mair F, Finch T, McFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, Rapley T, Ballini L, Ong BN, Rogers A, Murray E, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Gunn J, Montori V. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Impl Sci. 2009;4:29.CrossRef May C, Mair F, Finch T, McFarlane A, Dowrick C, Treweek S, Rapley T, Ballini L, Ong BN, Rogers A, Murray E, Elwyn G, Légaré F, Gunn J, Montori V. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Impl Sci. 2009;4:29.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Ross J, Stevenson F, Dack C, Pal K, May C, Michie S, Barnard M, Murray E. Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:794.CrossRef Ross J, Stevenson F, Dack C, Pal K, May C, Michie S, Barnard M, Murray E. Developing an implementation strategy for a digital health intervention: an example in routine healthcare. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:794.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gude WT, Roos-Blom M-J, van der Veer S, Dongelmans DA, de Jonge E, Peek N, de Keizer NF. Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care. Impl Sci. 2019;14:90.CrossRef Gude WT, Roos-Blom M-J, van der Veer S, Dongelmans DA, de Jonge E, Peek N, de Keizer NF. Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care. Impl Sci. 2019;14:90.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Vest JR, Jung HY, Wiley K, Kooreman MA, Pettit L, Unruh MA. Adoption of health information technology among US nursing facilities. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(8):995–1000.CrossRef Vest JR, Jung HY, Wiley K, Kooreman MA, Pettit L, Unruh MA. Adoption of health information technology among US nursing facilities. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2019;20(8):995–1000.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Kujala S, Horhammer I, Heponiemi T, Josefsson K. The role of frontline leaders in building health professional support for a new patient portal: survey study. JMIR. 2019;21(3):e11413.PubMed Kujala S, Horhammer I, Heponiemi T, Josefsson K. The role of frontline leaders in building health professional support for a new patient portal: survey study. JMIR. 2019;21(3):e11413.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Tsai JCN, Hung SY. Determinants of knowledge management system adoption in health care. J Org Comp Elect Com. 2016;26(3):244–66.CrossRef Tsai JCN, Hung SY. Determinants of knowledge management system adoption in health care. J Org Comp Elect Com. 2016;26(3):244–66.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Jeffries M, Keers RN, Phipps DL, Williams R, Brown B, Avery AJ, Peek N, Ashcroft DM. Developing a learning health system: insights from a qualitative process evaluation of a pharmacist-led electronic audit and feedback intervention to improve medication safety in primary care. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205419.CrossRef Jeffries M, Keers RN, Phipps DL, Williams R, Brown B, Avery AJ, Peek N, Ashcroft DM. Developing a learning health system: insights from a qualitative process evaluation of a pharmacist-led electronic audit and feedback intervention to improve medication safety in primary care. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0205419.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Mair F, May C. O’Donnell, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic reviews. Bull WHO. 2012;90(5):357–64.PubMed Mair F, May C. O’Donnell, Finch T, Sullivan F, Murray E. factors that promote or inhibit the implementation of e-health systems: an explanatory systematic reviews. Bull WHO. 2012;90(5):357–64.PubMed
31.
go back to reference May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535–54.CrossRef May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535–54.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference May C. Towards a general theory of implementation. Implementation Sci. 2013;8:18.CrossRef May C. Towards a general theory of implementation. Implementation Sci. 2013;8:18.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference McEvoy R, Ballini L, Maltoni S, O’Donnell CA, Mair FS, MacFarlane A. A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Impl Sci. 2014;9:2.CrossRef McEvoy R, Ballini L, Maltoni S, O’Donnell CA, Mair FS, MacFarlane A. A qualitative systematic review of studies using the normalization process theory to research implementation processes. Impl Sci. 2014;9:2.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference May C, Cummings A, Girling M, Bracher M, Mair FS, May CM, Murray E, Myall M, Rapley T, Finch T. Using normalization process theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Impl Sci. 2018;13:80.CrossRef May C, Cummings A, Girling M, Bracher M, Mair FS, May CM, Murray E, Myall M, Rapley T, Finch T. Using normalization process theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review. Impl Sci. 2018;13:80.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage; 2009. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. London: Sage; 2009.
38.
go back to reference Strauss A, Corbin J. The discovery of grounded theory. 7th ed. New Brunswick and London: Aldine Transaction; 2009. Strauss A, Corbin J. The discovery of grounded theory. 7th ed. New Brunswick and London: Aldine Transaction; 2009.
39.
go back to reference Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage; 2006.
41.
go back to reference Robert G, Cornwell J, Black N. Friends and family test should no longer be mandatory. BMJ. 2018;360:k367.CrossRef Robert G, Cornwell J, Black N. Friends and family test should no longer be mandatory. BMJ. 2018;360:k367.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference May C, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Impl Sci. 2016;11(1):14. May C, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Impl Sci. 2016;11(1):14.
Metadata
Title
Implementing a digital patient feedback system: an analysis using normalisation process theory
Authors
Bie Nio Ong
Damian Hodgson
Nicola Small
Papreen Nahar
Caroline Sanders
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05234-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Health Services Research 1/2020 Go to the issue