Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T12:37:54.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Developing and Testing a Patient Feedback Survey for Patients Referred to the Bromsgrove Memory Clinic for Memory Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Mohammed Yousef
Affiliation:
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, Worcester, United Kingdom
Richard Wooster*
Affiliation:
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, Worcester, United Kingdom
Lathika Weerasena
Affiliation:
Herefordshire and Worcestershire Health and Care NHS Trust, Bromsgrove, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

A patient feedback survey was designed based on Memory Service National Accreditation standards. The aim was to measure if the Bromsgrove Memory Clinic was meeting these standards and to show if a patient survey could be obtained in a group with cognitive issues.

Methods

The 18-question survey was offered to patients referred by General Practitioners for memory assessment. The survey was designed with cognitive difficulties in mind and could be filled out jointly by patients and their accompanying person. Answers were collected using Likert scale format. 23 completed surveys were collected. Large font and facial expression diagrams were used to aid the participants. Surveys were collected during outpatient/home visits by clinicians (doctors/nurses) trained in memory assessment.

Results

From the first question, 12/23 strongly agreed they received enough information prior to the appointment to feel well prepared about what to expect, 9 chose agreed and 2 gave neutral answers. The second question asked how long they waited to receive an appointment, 13 were seen within 6 weeks or less from point of referral, 7 waited between 6-weeks and 3-months. 16 participants strongly agreed to feeling happy with appointment date/time. 17 strongly agreed the clinic was easy to locate.

Next, 13/23 strongly agreed, 8 agreed, 1 was neutral that they felt confident the clinic would be able to meet their needs and 1 disagreed. Question seven asked “did staff explain the assessment process to you?” and 20/23 strongly agreed. Question eight asked if participants were given opportunity to ask questions, 22/23 strongly agreed. 21/23 strongly agreed enough time was given to discussing important information. 17/23 strongly agreed they knew they could stop the assessment at any point. 22/23 strongly agreed their privacy was respected.

Questions 12–14 looked at information given, and they could class it as “Not enough, Right amount, Too much or Not applicable”. 19/23 indicated “right amount” for information given about diagnosis. 21/23 felt information about investigations or tests was the right amount. Regarding information about medications, 20 selected “the right amount”.

18 strongly agreed the information, advice and support was helpful and sufficient. 19 strongly agreed they were treated with respect and dignity. 20 strongly agreed they wouldn't hesitate to recommend the service to others.

Conclusion

The results showed an overwhelmingly positive memory service experience in Bromsgrove and it is possible to meaningfully survey this patient group with some adjustments. The survey could be repeated to monitor standards over time.

Type
4 Service Evaluation
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.