PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To analyse how staff in one Scottish hospital respond to anonymised patient feedback posted on the nationally endorsed feedback platform Care Opinion; and to understand staff experiences of, and attitudes towards, engaging with Care Opinion data.
METHODS: This was a multi-method study comprising: (a) numerical and thematic analysis of stories posted during a six-month period, using a published framework; (b) thematic analysis of interviews with a range of 10 hospital staff responsible for organisational responses to feedback.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven stories were published during the six-month period. All received a response, with a mean response time of 3.9 days. Ninety-six responses were made in total, from 20 staff members. Personalisation and tailoring was mostly assessed as performing well against the published framework. Only two \'changes made\' were reported. While staff interviewed were mostly understanding of why patients might prefer giving anonymised feedback, some found it uncomfortable and challenging. Participants described instances where they might seek to de-anonymise the individual, in order to pass on personal thanks to the relevant staff member, or to investigate the issue raised and seek resolution offline. Patients did not always want to identify themselves; this could sometimes lead staff to query the veracity or importance of issues raised. Sometimes staff could identify individuals anyway, including one described as \'our regular person\'.
CONCLUSIONS: Staff used to engaging directly with patients and families, both clinically and in dealing with feedback, need support in dealing with anonymous feedback, and the uncomfortable situation of unequal power it may create.
METHODS: This was a multi-method study comprising: (a) numerical and thematic analysis of stories posted during a six-month period, using a published framework; (b) thematic analysis of interviews with a range of 10 hospital staff responsible for organisational responses to feedback.
RESULTS: Seventy-seven stories were published during the six-month period. All received a response, with a mean response time of 3.9 days. Ninety-six responses were made in total, from 20 staff members. Personalisation and tailoring was mostly assessed as performing well against the published framework. Only two \'changes made\' were reported. While staff interviewed were mostly understanding of why patients might prefer giving anonymised feedback, some found it uncomfortable and challenging. Participants described instances where they might seek to de-anonymise the individual, in order to pass on personal thanks to the relevant staff member, or to investigate the issue raised and seek resolution offline. Patients did not always want to identify themselves; this could sometimes lead staff to query the veracity or importance of issues raised. Sometimes staff could identify individuals anyway, including one described as \'our regular person\'.
CONCLUSIONS: Staff used to engaging directly with patients and families, both clinically and in dealing with feedback, need support in dealing with anonymous feedback, and the uncomfortable situation of unequal power it may create.
摘要：
目的：分析一家苏格兰医院的员工如何回应在国家认可的反馈平台“护理意见”上发布的匿名患者反馈；并了解员工的经验，和态度，参与护理意见数据。
方法：这是一项多方法研究，包括：（a）对六个月内发布的故事进行数字和主题分析，使用已发布的框架；（b）对负责组织反馈的10名医院工作人员进行访谈的主题分析。
结果：在6个月期间发表了77个故事。所有人都收到了回应，平均响应时间为3.9天。共作出九十六项答复,20名工作人员。个性化和剪裁大多被评估为与已发布的框架相比表现良好。只报告了两个“所做的更改”。虽然接受采访的工作人员大多了解为什么患者可能更愿意提供匿名反馈，有些人觉得不舒服和具有挑战性。参与者描述了他们可能试图对个人进行匿名化的情况，为了向相关工作人员转达个人感谢，或调查提出的问题并寻求离线解决方案。患者并不总是想表明自己的身份；这有时会导致员工质疑所提出问题的真实性或重要性。有时工作人员无论如何都可以识别个人，包括一个被描述为“我们的普通人”的人。
结论：工作人员习惯于直接与患者和家属接触，无论是在临床上还是在处理反馈方面，在处理匿名反馈时需要支持，以及它可能造成的不平等权力的令人不安的局面。
方法：这是一项多方法研究，包括：（a）对六个月内发布的故事进行数字和主题分析，使用已发布的框架；（b）对负责组织反馈的10名医院工作人员进行访谈的主题分析。
结果：在6个月期间发表了77个故事。所有人都收到了回应，平均响应时间为3.9天。共作出九十六项答复,20名工作人员。个性化和剪裁大多被评估为与已发布的框架相比表现良好。只报告了两个“所做的更改”。虽然接受采访的工作人员大多了解为什么患者可能更愿意提供匿名反馈，有些人觉得不舒服和具有挑战性。参与者描述了他们可能试图对个人进行匿名化的情况，为了向相关工作人员转达个人感谢，或调查提出的问题并寻求离线解决方案。患者并不总是想表明自己的身份；这有时会导致员工质疑所提出问题的真实性或重要性。有时工作人员无论如何都可以识别个人，包括一个被描述为“我们的普通人”的人。
结论：工作人员习惯于直接与患者和家属接触，无论是在临床上还是在处理反馈方面，在处理匿名反馈时需要支持，以及它可能造成的不平等权力的令人不安的局面。
