Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Sep 28, 2017
Open Peer Review Period: Sep 29, 2017 - Jun 21, 2018
Date Accepted: Sep 24, 2018
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Evaluating Digital Maturity and Patient Acceptability of Real-Time Patient Experience Feedback Systems: Systematic Review

Khanbhai M, Flott K, Darzi A, Mayer E

Evaluating Digital Maturity and Patient Acceptability of Real-Time Patient Experience Feedback Systems: Systematic Review

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(1):e9076

DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9076

PMID: 31344680

PMCID: 6682271

Evaluating Digital Maturity and Patient Acceptability of Real-Time Patient Experience Feedback Systems: A Systematic Review

  • Mustafa Khanbhai; 
  • Kelsey Flott; 
  • Ara Darzi; 
  • Erik Mayer

ABSTRACT

Background:

One of the essential elements of a strategic approach to improving patients’ experience is to measure and report on patients’ experiences in real time. Real-time feedback (RTF) is increasingly being collected using digital technology; however, there are several factors that may influence the success of the digital system.

Objective:

The aim of this review was to evaluate the digital maturity and patient acceptability of real-time patient experience feedback systems.

Methods:

We systematically searched the following databases to identify papers that used digital systems to collect RTF: The Cochrane Library, Global Health, Health Management Information Consortium, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL. In addition, Google Scholar and gray literature were utilized. Studies were assessed on their digital maturity using a Digital Maturity Framework on the basis of the following 4 domains: capacity/resource, usage, interoperability, and impact. A total score of 4 indicated the highest level of digital maturity.

Results:

RTF was collected primarily using touchscreens, tablets, and Web-based platforms. Implementation of digital systems showed acceptable response rates and generally positive views from patients and staff. Patient demographics according to RTF responses varied. An overrepresentation existed in females with a white predominance and in patients aged ≥65 years. Of 13 eligible studies, none had digital systems that were deemed to be of the highest level of maturity. Three studies received a score of 3, 2, and 1, respectively. Four studies scored 0 points. While 7 studies demonstrated capacity/resource, 8 demonstrated impact. None of the studies demonstrated interoperability in their digital systems.

Conclusions:

Patients and staff alike are willing to engage in RTF delivered using digital technology, thereby disrupting previous paper-based feedback. However, a lack of emphasis on digital maturity may lead to ineffective RTF, thwarting improvement efforts. Therefore, given the potential benefits of RTF, health care services should ensure that their digital systems deliver across the digital maturity continuum.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Khanbhai M, Flott K, Darzi A, Mayer E

Evaluating Digital Maturity and Patient Acceptability of Real-Time Patient Experience Feedback Systems: Systematic Review

J Med Internet Res 2019;21(1):e9076

DOI: 10.2196/jmir.9076

PMID: 31344680

PMCID: 6682271

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.

© 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.