You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Correspondence
Simple example of a practical solution to make patient feedback more useful
  1. L Marjon Dijkema,
  2. Lisa W Dümmer,
  3. Jasmijn D Generaal,
  4. Merel B Klunder,
  5. Anna Bouwknegt,
  6. Frederik Keus,
  7. Iwan C C van der Horst
  1. Department of Critical Care, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to L Marjon Dijkema, ICV, UMCG, Hanzeplein 1, Groningen, Netherlands; l.m.dijkema{at}umcg.nl

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007070

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    With great interest we read the article of Flott et al 1 describing the challenges of using patient-reported feedback. We recognise the challenges described and performed a bachelor project in the intensive care unit (ICU) in the University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG). We think the results from our project provide a potential promising practical solution to make feedback more useful.

    In 2013 the UMCG participated in an independent multicentre study conducted among relatives of ICU patients.2 In the open questions of the questionnaire, more dissatisfaction than expected was found, which fuelled the quest for an alternative, simple and continuous feedback system. In this study we compared the quality and amount of feedback gathered by an oral survey during the first 2 weeks and an app during the consecutive 2 weeks.

    Between 20 February …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LMD, LWD, JDG, MBK, AB conceived the design of the study. LMD coordinated the study. LWD, JDG, MBK, AB collected the data. LMD, LWD, JDG, MBK, AB analysed the results. LWD, JDG, MBK, AB wrote the initial manuscript. LMD, EK, IvdH critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval METC UMCG.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.