Background & objectives The comparative uses of different types of patient experience (PE) feedback as data within quality improvement (QI) are poorly understood. This paper reviews what types are currently available and categorizes them by their characteristics in order to better understand their roles in QI. Methods A scoping review of types of feedback currently available to hospital staff in the UK was undertaken. This comprised academic database searches for “measures of PE outcomes” (2000‐2016), and grey literature and websites for all types of “PE feedback” potentially available (2005‐2016). Through an iterative consensus process, we developed a list of characteristics and used this to present categories of similar types. Main results The scoping review returned 37 feedback types. A list of 12 characteristics was developed and applied, enabling identification of 4 categories that help understand potential use within QI—(1) Hospital‐initiated (validated) quantitative surveys: for example the NHS Adult Inpatient Survey; (2) Patient‐initiated qualitative feedback: for example complaints or twitter comments; (3) Hospital‐initiated qualitative feedback: for example Experience Based Co‐Design; (4) Other: for example Friends & Family Test. Of those routinely collected, few elicit “ready‐to‐use” data and those that do elicit data most suitable for measuring accountability, not for informing ward‐based improvement. Guidance does exist for linking collection of feedback to QI for some feedback types in Category 3 but these types  are not routinely used. Conclusion If feedback is to be used more frequently within QI, more attention must be paid to obtaining and making available the most appropriate types.

IntroductionLength of hospital inpatient stays have reduced. This benefits patients, who prefer to be at home, and hospitals, which can treat more people when stays are shorter. Patients may, however, leave hospital sicker, with ongoing care needs. The transition period from hospital to home can be risky, particularly for older patients with complex health and social needs. Improving patient experience, especially through greater patient involvement, may improve outcomes for patients and is a key indicator of care quality and safety. In this research, we aim to: capture the experiences of older patients and their families during the transition from hospital to home, and identify opportunities for greater patient involvement in care, particularly where this contributes to greater individual-level and organisational-level resilience.Methods and analysisA ‘focused ethnography’ comprising observations, ‘Go-Along’ and semistructured interviews will be used to capture patient and carer experiences during different points in the care transition from admission to 90 days after discharge. We will recruit 30 patients and their carers from six hospital departments across two National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. Analysis of observations and interviews will use a framework approach to identify themes to understand the experience of transitions and generate ideas about how patients could be more actively involved in their care. This will include exploring what ‘good’ care at transitions looks like and seeking out examples of success, as well as recommendations for improvement.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received from the NHS Research Ethics Committee in Wales. The research findings will add to a growing body of knowledge about patient experience of transitions, in particular providing insight into the experiences of patients and carers throughout the transitions process, in ‘real time’. Importantly, the data will be used to inform the development of a patient-centred intervention to improve the quality and safety of transitions.

Context: Being involved in one's care is prioritised within UK healthcare policy to improve care quality and safety. However, research suggests that many older people struggle with this.Design: We present focused ethnographic research exploring older peoples' involvement in healthcare from hospital to home. Results:We propose that being involved in care is a dynamic form of labour, which we call 'involvement work' (IW). In hospital, many patients 'entrust' IW to others; indeed, when desired, maintaining control, or being actively involved, was challenging. Patient and professionals' expectations, alongside hospital processes, promoted delegation; staff frequently did IW on patients' behalf. Many people wanted to resume IW postdischarge, but struggled because they were out of practice.Discussion: Preference and capacity for involvement was dynamic, fluctuating over time, according to context and resource accessibility. The challenges of resuming IW were frequently underestimated by patients and care providers, increasingThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

BackgroundThe PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention provides a way to systematically collect patient feedback to support service improvement. To provide a sustainable mechanism for the PRASE intervention, a 2‐year improvement project explored the potential for hospital volunteers to facilitate the collection of PRASE feedback.ObjectiveTo explore the implementation of the PRASE intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers from the perspectives of key stakeholders.DesignA qualitative case study design was utilized across three acute NHS trusts in the United Kingdom between March 2016 and October 2016. Ward level data (staff interviews; action planning meeting recordings; implementation fidelity information) were analysed taking a pen portrait approach. We also carried out focus groups with hospital volunteers and interviews with voluntary services/patient experience staff, which were analysed thematically.ResultsWhilst most ward staff reported feeling engaged with the intervention, there were discordant views on its use and usefulness. The hospital volunteers were positive about their involvement, and on some wards, worked with staff to produce actions to improve services. The voluntary services/patient experience staff participants emphasised the need for PRASE to sit within an organisations’ wider governance structure.ConclusionFrom the perspective of key stakeholders, hospital volunteers facilitating the collection of PRASE feedback is a feasible means of implementing the PRASE intervention. However, the variability around ward staff being able to use the feedback to make changes to services demonstrates that it is this latter part of the PRASE intervention cycle that is more problematic.

No abstract