Currently submitted to: Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
Date Submitted: Jul 24, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: Jul 27, 2026 - Sep 21, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Operationalising Unstructured Patient Feedback for Healthcare Quality Improvement: A Hybrid NLP Pipeline and Clinician-Facing Dashboard for Oral Healthcare
ABSTRACT
Background:
Natural language processing (NLP) is being increasing used to analyse unstructured patient feedback (UPF) for healthcare service quality improvement. Prior studies demonstrate the analytical potential of methods like topic modelling and sentiment analysis, but are largely descriptive or conceptual, with limited translation into tools for routine clinical practice. This leaves a critical knowledge gap between computational research and its realisation within (oral) healthcare service quality improvement, where large volumes of UPF are available but difficult to interpret at scale.
Objective:
Develop, implement, and evaluate a clinician-facing dashboard to translate unstructured patient feedback (UPF) into actionable insights for oral healthcare service quality improvement via a hybrid NLP Pipeline.
Methods:
We developed a four-stage hybrid NLP pipeline, combining topic modelling, sentiment analysis, and multi-label text classification. We then applied it to 57,794 reviews of NHS dental practices in England (2019–2024). Topic modelling using BERTopic identified 191 topics, with sentiment analysis via a fine-tuned DeBERTa model across four classes (positive, negative, neutral, and mixed). We iteratively consolidated topics into a ten-theme taxonomy through a hybrid approach integrating LLM-assisted classification with expert qualitative interpretation. The taxonomy informed a supervised multi-label text classifier, adapted for Google Maps Places reviews to assess portability, deploying it within a dashboard that processes real-time patient reviews, visualising thematic and sentiment insights. We evaluated the ten-theme taxonomy composition and dashboard useability through qualitative applied thematic analyses of reviews and ten semi-structured interviews with dental professionals.
Results:
Topic modelling generated 191 topics, consolidated into a ten-theme taxonomy. The sentiment classifier achieved F1=0.952 across four classes, while the multi-label theme classifier achieved micro-F1=0.765 and ROC-AUC of 0.935. Operationalised within a clinician-facing dashboard, these models enabled near real-time synthesis of patient feedback at practice level. Qualitative useability evaluation indicates the dashboard helps identify areas for service quality improvement that would otherwise be difficult to detect. Dual-axis representation of theme and sentiment enabled more nuanced interpretation, going beyond binary or single-label approaches. Overall, the dashboard helped summarise reviews for staff meetings and QI, but users tended to focus on negative feedback.
Conclusions:
Our study demonstrates a reproducible NLP pipeline to produce practical taxonomies both for oral healthcare and potentially other patient-feedback contexts. It addresses a critical knowledge gap in translating NLP research into clinician-facing tools for real-time service quality improvement. By integrating computational methods with domain-specific expert interpretation, we provide a way to bridge between data analysis and clinical application. Our findings highlight the need for hybrid approaches incorporating expert assessment to address error, bias, and useability. Meanwhile, our dashboard and mapping of its development pipeline offer a practical approach for embedding patient perspectives within routine digital healthcare to support data-driven, patient-centred service improvement in oral healthcare and beyond.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.