Table 1 Summary of included studies reporting healthcare professionals’ and patients’ perspectives on using PREMs (N = 20)

Barr et al. [30]

To explore the impact of state-wide public reporting of hospital patient satisfaction on hospital quality improvement (QI), using Rhode Island (RI) as a case example

General, inpatient rehab and psychiatric hospitals

Adult patients with an overnight stay who received medical, surgical or obstetrical services, and psychiatric patients. (Sample size, gender ratio, age, and ethnicity nr

42, CEO’s, medical directors, nurse executives, and patient satisfaction coordinators (age and years in specialty nr)

Mixed (Semi-structured interview and patient questionnaires)

Interviews: 42

Standardised state-wide patient satisfaction survey, hardcopy, after discharge

Boyce et al. [25]

To explore surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked PROMs feedback and to examine whether this information led to changes in their practice

Hospitals

759, Hip replacement patients, (Gender, age and ethnicity nr)

11, Consultant orthopaedic surgeons, (age and years in specialty nr)

Mixed (Semi-structured interview and patient questionnaires)

Interviews: 11

Peer-benchmarked PRMs including OHS, EQ-5D, shortened version of HOOS and general health status item, hardcopy, before and 6 months post-surgery

Burt et al. [4]

To explore the views of primary care practice staff regarding the utility of patient experience surveys

Primary care (general practice)

N/A

127; 38 GPs, 19 practice managers, 18 nurses, 21 receptionists, 13 administrators, secretaries, and 18 other staff (dispensers and health-care assistants); (age and years in specialty nr)

Focus groups

Interviews: 127

Patient experience survey

Carter et al. [21]

To look at the ways in which general practices respond to patient feedback, both in terms of process and outcomes. It also considered consumers’ and primary care organisations’ suggestions and perspectives articulated during discussions about patient feedback

Primary care (general practice)

8600, general patients (Gender, age and ethnicity nr)

88, GP and primary care trust teams. (age and years in specialty nr)

Mixed (Focus groups and patient questionnaires), Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

Interviews: 88

IPQ, hardcopy, post-consultation

Tirado et al. [37]

To explore the benefits of, and challenges to, using PRMs for service quality improvement in clinical genetics, achieved through a case-study of a local clinician-led service quality improvement initiative

All Wales Medical Genomics Service (AWMGS)

(96, Patients attending AWMGS) (Gender, age and ethnicity nr)

6, Clinical genetics consultants, genetic counsellors, 1–25y; (years in specialty nr)

Mixed (interview and patient questionnaires), SPSS

Interviews: 6

EQ-5D, GCOS-24, AWMGS satisfaction questionnaire, hardcopy, before clinic attendance (EQ-5D, GCOS-24) or after clinic visit (AWMGS satisfaction questionnaire)

Davies et al. [8]

To develop a framework for understanding factors affecting the use of patient survey data in quality improvement

Health plans, medical groups and hospitals

No characteristics reported

14, Medical, clinical improvement, service quality directors, clinical improvement coordinators and managers, 2–20 years (team leaders only); (age and years in specialty nr)

Mixed (Semi-structured interviews and literature review), manually reviewing transcripts

Interviews: 14

nr

Davies et al. [27]

To evaluate the use of a modified CAHPS survey to support quality improvement in a collaborative focused on patient-centred care, assess subsequent changes in patient experiences, and identify factors that promoted or impeded data use

Health plans, medical groups and hospitals

General patients, (Sample size, gender, age and ethnicity nr)

50, Medical directors, directors of clinical improvement or service quality, group manager and quality improvement staff including team leaders, (age and years in specialty nr)

Mixed (Interview and survey) Quality Desktop TM

8 leaders identified

They brought a total of 50 staff to attend meetings for collaborative activities

Interviews: 7

CAHPS survey, telephone, before, after, and continuously over 12 months of the project

Davies et al. [35]

To assess factors that were barriers to, or promoters of, efforts to improve care experiences in VA facilities

Veterans’ Health Administrations

Surgical inpatients (Sample size, gender, age and ethnicity nr)

8, Executive director, patient advocates, customer services managers, ward nurse, and advanced nurse practitioner. (age and years in specialty nr)

Interviews, content analysis

Interviews: 8

SHEP, hardcopy, post-discharge

D'Lima et al. [26]

To report experience of anaesthetists participating in long-term initiative to provide comprehensive personalised feedback to consultants on patient-reported quality of recovery indicators

Hospital

Surgical patients in recovery (Sample size, gender, age and ethnicity nr)

21; 13 Consultant anaesthetists, 6 surgical nursing leads, theatre manager, clinical coordinator for recovery, nr, 2–32 years (Anaesthetists only) (years in specialty nr)

Semi-structured interviews, grounded theory

Interviews: 21

nr

Farrington et al. [22]

To explore doctors’ perceptions of patient experience surveys in primary and secondary care settings in order to deepen understandings of how doctors view the plausibility of such surveys

Primary and secondary care GP clinics

No sample characteristics reported

41, Primary (GP) and secondary (dermatology, gynaecology, neurosurgery, plastic surgery, renal medicine and rheumatology) doctors. (age and years in specialty nr)

Semi-structured interviews, NVivo

Interviews: 41

GPPS and National GMC patient questionnaire, hardcopy, after clinical consultation

Friedberg et al. [23]

To examine whether and how physician groups are using patient experience data to improve patient care

Primary care

No sample characteristics reported

Nr, leaders of physician groups including medical director, administrator or manager. (age and years in specialty nr)

Semi-structured interview, content analysis

nr

nr

Heineman et al. [38]

To describe the experiences of seven prosthetic clinics provided with external facilitation in collecting and sustaining patient-reported data collection as part of routine patient care and implementing QI activities

Prosthetic clinics

250, Prosthetics and orthotics patients, Prosthetics and orthotics patients, 155:95. Age, gender and ethnicity nr

Nr, Certified prosthetists, residents and others. (age and years in specialty nr)

Mixed (QI consultations/meetings and clinician and patient survey), ethnography

nr

OPUS, hardcopy, at admission, after device delivery and at 2-month follow-up

Lucock et al. [33]

To identify the barriers and facilitators to effective implementation and clinician engagement within a complex routine UK service setting

Psychological therapy services

197, Mental health, 70:132, 39, Gender and ethnicity nr

42, Psychological therapists, trainee clinical psychologists and temporary or short-term sessional therapists. (age and years in specialty nr)

26 permanent and qualified therapists, 8 trainee clinical psychologists, and 8 therapists either employed on a temporary basis to address the waiting list or who were based in another part of the service and provided short-term, sessional input. Of the 26 permanent and qualified therapists, 7 were cognitive behavioural therapists, 3 psychodynamic psychotherapists, and 16 clinical psychologists

Mixed (Patient outcome measures, therapist questionnaire, therapist review meetings, patient questionnaire, patient focus groups)

Focus groups: 2

CORE-10, ASC, HASQ, ARM-5, patient experience questionnaire, hardcopy, post-discharge (before session 5)

Reeves and Seccombe [28]

To assess current attitudes towards the national patient survey programme in England, establish the extent to which survey results are used and identify barriers and incentives for using them

Hospital

850 per NHS, General patients, Age, gender and ethnicity nr

24, Director of Nursing, Director of Patient and Public Involvement, Quality Development Manager, Head of Clinical Governance and others. (age and years in specialty nr)

Semi-structured interview, manually coded and categorised

Interviews: 24 (no patients)

NHS annual patient surveys including traffic light charts (administration time points nr)

Rooijen et al. [34]

To provide insight into experiences with the implementation and current ways of working with a patient-reported experience measure as an integrated measurement strategy

Disability care organisation

8, individuals with disability, Age, gender and ethnicity nr

Nr; quality manager, healthcare professionals trained in PREMs, trainers; (age and years in specialty nr)

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups

Interviews: 3

Focus group: 3

Manager, trainer, clients, researcher, quality manager

Client interviews: 8

PREM used in the Dutch disability care sector called ‘How I Feel About It!’ (administration time points nr)

Scott et al. [29]

To determine the feasibility of implementing a patient safety survey which measures patients’ experiences of their own safety relating to a care transition

Hospital

28; cardiology, geriatrics, orthopaedics, stroke; Age, gender and ethnicity nr

21, ward sisters, discharge coordinators, ward receptionists, apprentices, nurses, patient safety leads, research nurses, occupational therapists, community matron; (age and years in specialty nr)

Mixed methods approach (Surveys, Interviews, focus groups and staff incident reports)

Patient interviews: 28

Staff interviews: 21

Patient safety survey (administration time points nr)

Alvarado et al. [36]

Exploring variation in the use of feedback from national clinical audits: a realist investigation

NHS Trusts (Three large teaching hospitals and two District General Hospitals)

None

54, doctors, nurses, audit support staff, trust board and committee members, quality and safety staff, information staff

Semi-structured interviews, NVivo

Staff interviews: 54

National Clinical Audit feedback (Administration nr)

Berger et al. [31]

Using patient feedback to drive quality improvement in hospitals: a qualitative study

Hospitals

None

9, Managers, supervisors and Director

Semi-structured interviews, NVivo, and document analysis

Staff interviews: 9

Patient feedback forms, data consolidation reports, action plans, process stands and protocols and institutional websites, social networks and service site for patient feedback/complaints. (No other details reported)

Squitieri et al. [32]

Patient-reported experience measures are essential to improving quality of care for chronic wounds: An international qualitative study

Wound centres in Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands and USA

60, wound patients, 35:25; Canada 12, Denmark 21, The Netherlands 15 and USA 12; Age nr

None

Semi-structured interviews, Interpretive decision approach

Patient interviews: 60

WOUND-Q

Siantz et al. [24]

Patient Experience with a Large-Scale Integrated Behavioral Health and Primary Care Initiative: A Qualitative Study

Community health settings

54 patients, chronic care condition and behavioural health condition; Age, gender, ethnicity nr

32, registered nurses, primary care providers, care coordinators and behavioural health specialists

Semi-structured interview, Focus groups

Patient Focus groups: 8

Staff interviews: 32

nr