Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jan 22:6:2055207619899520.
doi: 10.1177/2055207619899520. eCollection 2020 Jan-Dec.

Anonymity, veracity and power in online patient feedback: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of staff responses to patient comments on the 'Care Opinion' platform in Scotland

Louise Locock  1 , Zoë Skea  1 , Gina Alexander  2 , Caroline Hiscox  3 , Lynn Laidlaw  4 , Jenna Shepherd  5
Affiliations

Anonymity, veracity and power in online patient feedback: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of staff responses to patient comments on the 'Care Opinion' platform in Scotland

Louise Locock et al. Digit Health. .

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.

Keywords: Care Opinion; NHS staff; Patient experience; anonymity; online feedback; patient feedback; power; qualitative research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Performance against the ‘LLRF’ criteria.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Duschinsky R, Paddison C. ‘‘ The final arbiter of everything’’: A genealogy of concern with patient experience in Britain. Soc Theory Health 2017; 16: 94–110.
    1. Meterko M, Wright S, Lin Het al. Mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction: The influences of patient-centered care and evidence-based medicine. Health Serv Res 2010; 45: 1188–204. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jha AK, Orav EJ, Zheng Jet al. Patients’ perception of hospital care in the United States. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1921–31. - PubMed
    1. Murff HJ, France DJ, Blackford Jet al. Relationship between patient complaints and surgical complications. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15: 13–16. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Edgcumbe DP. Patients’ perceptions of hospital cleanliness are correlated with rates of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia. J Hosp Infect 2009; 71: 99–101. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources