Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Better Patient Feedback, Better Healthcare

  • Comments (1)

Title:  Better Patient Feedback, Better Healthcare

Author:  Dr Taher Mahmud

Publisher: M & K Publishing, 2012

Reviewer: Barbara O’Donnell, senior ODP, Whittington Health

What was it like?

From the title, many practitioners may ask what use this book is to staff who are already overstretched and having to find ever more resources in a climate of austerity and change. Isn’t this just another paper exercise designed to make things look better?

The author himself is a physician, and so it is a practical approach he brings to his passion for this subject, using real-life examples.  He is also an award winner for his work in this area.

The area examined here is long-term health conditions and it is not clear about the effectiveness of the approaches outlined  across all healthcare settings. He outlines the benefits of patient feedback , such as reduced clinic waiting times, improved patient satisfaction, increased throughput and increased quality of communication. Increased communication quality is seen as fundamental to these processes.

Better_Patient_feedback__better_healthcare

The author argues for keeping the patient as the central focus of planning and consistency in the feedback systems used across organisations. He provides blueprints for this while clarifying what needs to be taken into account in the setting up of such systems, whether on paper or online. The implementation of consistent feedback systems will generate small changes, which cumulatively add up to major changes in the long term. Arguably, with a system the size of the NHS, this long-term approach is key, especially given that 80% of healthcare budgets are made up of treatment of long-term health conditions.

From research conducted in the military, there is evidence to suggest that accurate data collation is the main method by which patient outcomes are improved, and these same principles are being used here. 

What were the highlights? 

This is a detailed examination in a fairly concise format. The differing perspectives (doctor/patient/regulatory body/national healthcare vision) that are taken into account enhance the arguments made.

Strengths & weaknesses:

I would have liked to have seen more discussion on the barriers to implementation of such systems. 

This approach may tie in well with the Expert Patient Programme; involving patients more fully in feedback processes to improve their care and empowering them to cope better.

At times, this feels a little like Psychology 101. Some of the ideas outlined here may already be familiar to certain groups of healthcare professionals.

The subject of burn-out for both patients and healthcare providers is touched upon.

In light of the NHS Institute’s NHS Patient Feedback, this is a timely publication.  

Who should read it?

This book would be useful to anyone involved in service planning and implementation, all healthcare practitioners and  information management personnel.

  • Comments (1)

Readers' comments (1)

  • michael stone

    The NHS, in an overall sense, is almost totally hopeless at 'listening to patient feedback' and improving its (systemic) behaviour by learning from patient feedback - see the front page of yesterday's Daily Telegraph for some comments from the NHS Ombudsman !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment.

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.