» Articles » PMID: 36856813

Feedback Reports to the General Practitioner (GP) on the Patients' Experiences: Are GPs Interested, and is This Interest Associated with GP Factors and Patient Experience Scores?

Overview
Journal Fam Pract
Specialty Public Health
Date 2023 Mar 1
PMID 36856813
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient experience feedback is key in patient centred health systems, but empirical evidence of general practitioner (GP) interest in it is sparse. We aimed to: (i) quantitatively estimate the level of GP interest for feedback reports on patient experience; (ii) explore determinants of such interest; and (iii) examine potential association between a priori interest and patient experience.

Methods: The patient experience survey included maximum 300 randomly selected patients for each of 50 randomly selected GPs (response rate 41.4%, n = 5,623). GPs were sent a postal letter offering feedback reports and were grouped according to their replies: (i) interested in the report; (ii) not interested. Associations between interest and GP variables were assessed with Chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression, while associations between interest and scores for 5 patient experiences scales were assessed with multilevel regression models.

Results: About half (n = 21; 45.7%) of the GPs showed interest in the report by asking to receive the report. The only GP variable associated with a priori interest was being a specialist in general practice (58.6% vs. 23.5% for those without) (P = 0.021). Interest was significantly associated with the practice patient experience scale (4.1 higher score compared with those not interested, P = 0.048). Interest in the report had small and nonsignificant associations with the remaining patient experience scales.

Conclusions: Almost half of the GPs, and almost 3 in 5 of specialists in general practice, were interested in receiving a GP-specific feedback report on patient experiences. Interest in the report was generally not related to patient experience scores.

Citing Articles

Quality improvement work in general practice; a Norwegian focus group study.

Eide T, Skjeie H, Hoye S Scand J Prim Health Care. 2024; 42(4):677-685.

PMID: 39044563 PMC: 11552270. DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2024.2380920.

References
1.
Iversen H, Haugum M, Bjertnaes O . Reliability and validity of the Psychiatric Inpatient Patient Experience Questionnaire - Continuous Electronic Measurement (PIPEQ-CEM). BMC Health Serv Res. 2022; 22(1):897. PMC: 9275271. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08307-5. View

2.
Holmboe O, Iversen H, Danielsen K, Bjertnaes O . The Norwegian patient experiences with GP questionnaire (PEQ-GP): reliability and construct validity following a national survey. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9):e016644. PMC: 5640105. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016644. View

3.
Heje H, Vedsted P, Olesen F . General practitioners' experience and benefits from patient evaluations. BMC Fam Pract. 2011; 12:116. PMC: 3217866. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2296-12-116. View

4.
Eide T, Oyane N, Hoye S . Promoters and inhibitors for quality improvement work in general practice: a qualitative analysis of 2715 free-text replies. BMJ Open Qual. 2022; 11(4). PMC: 9557324. DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2022-001880. View

5.
Haugum M, Danielsen K, Iversen H, Bjertnaes O . The use of data from national and other large-scale user experience surveys in local quality work: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014; 26(6):592-605. DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu077. View