Patient ParticipationNCT05603325
Using Patient Feedback in Mental Health Services
An observational study of Patient Participation, run by NHS Grampian at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
Aim: This study aims to assess how feasible and acceptable it is to deliver facilitated team meetings, designed to support mental health teams to listen and learn from patient feedback and how helpful and feasible the evaluation methods are. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Patient Participation
- What is being tested?
- Person Centered Practice and Interview
- How many people
- 9 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 24 Dec 2022to 12 Sep 2024
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Patients who are currently inpatients within the acute mental health ward where the study is taking place. Staff members who work within the acute mental health ward where the study is taking place.
Patient inclusion criteria:
- Adults over the age of 18 who are able to give informed consent
- Current inpatient who has been admitted for at least 48 hours
- Inpatients who have been assessed by ward staff as able to participate in the study
Patient exclusion criteria
- Patients who are experiencing acute high distress and/or approach by a researcher is likely to cause more distress.
- Patients who have not been in the ward long enough (less than 48hrs) for ward staff to assess their ability to engage with the researcher.
Staff inclusion criteria
- Staff member who meets one or more of the capital criteria being used to create a team with most chance of effectively engaging and working with patient feedback (Appendix 9)
- Staff who are willing to participate in the intervention and the evaluation
- Staff whose shift pattern allow them to attend at least 80% of intervention meetings
Staff exclusion criteria:
- Staff who are unable to attend intervention delivery during the day
- Staff who are not members of the clinical or support team
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Facilitating the Use of Patient Experience Feedback to Improve Mental Health Inpatient Services - a Feasibility and Acceptability Study.
Aim: This study aims to assess how feasible and acceptable it is to deliver facilitated team meetings, designed to support mental health teams to listen and learn from patient feedback and how helpful and feasible the evaluation methods are.
There is evidence that patients within inpatient mental health services find it difficult to share care experiences and those working in such services find it challenging to listen and act on care experience data. There is also evidence that staff burnout is higher among mental health nurses than it is in other parts of the health service.
Read more
Intervention: A team, made up of nurses, doctors, Allied Health Professionals and health care support workers working in an inpatient mental health services will engage in a 6 stage, facilitated intervention. This includes developing a more effective team culture by: getting ready for engaging with patient feedback; establishing values and vision for care experience and team work; discussing issues associated with trying to provide positive care experiences; analysis of care experiences; making change happen; reflection, evaluation and celebrating success.
Evaluation: Feasibility and acceptability will be assessed by considering views of participants and the facilitator on the intervention and ability for it to be delivered as planned. We will also consider facilitator; researcher and participants' views on the appropriateness of the evaluation methods and assess if we can achieve 50% staff response rates to a survey-person-centred practice index(PCPI). We will assess if the following methods help evaluate impact: care experiences using data from Care Opinion; complaints and feedback cards; improvement efforts made by the team in response to feedback; PCPI scores to assess changes in team culture and lastly, observations made during team meetings to assess change in team culture over time and staff survey about attitudes and beliefs about patient feedback.
Read the detailed description
This study is to support health care practitioners working in acute mental health settings to build their skills and confidence in making sense of patient feedback; changing care routines; changing their ways of interacting with patients and families and with each other so that their team culture and care experience will be more person-centred.
Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 requires NHS boards to listen and act on patient feedback. Previous research shows that healthcare staff working within mental health services find it challenging to listen and act on feedback. It also shows that changes they make in response to feedback tend to focus on the physical environment and not on how care is delivered or how healthcare staff behave. This study is designed to explore how these challenges can be overcome.
Some studies have, helpfully highlighted a number of factors that enhance the likelihood that teams will be able to actively engage with and act on feedback. Specifically, a number of studies have found that teams greatly benefit from facilitated support to engage effectively with feedback. There remains little understanding of what facilitation looks like or what tools are helpful in supporting learning and improving activity so if we are to become better at improving care experiences we need to urgently test interventions designed to provide such support and to evaluate them in holistic ways to understand their impact.
Health and social care services globally are exploring ways of enhancing the well-being of their workforce. NHS Grampian are committed to this and have a staff support programme, much of this current work is focused on helping people whose wellbeing has been negatively affected by work. It is necessary that we find ways in which we can support teams to be proactive about their individual and collective wellbeing which can be a protective factor against being negatively affected by team culture. Health care practitioners are also persons and as such have a need to connect with their beliefs and values. We know that health care professionals who are supported to work in ways that are consistent with their values are more likely to be able and available to offer person-centred care and are less likely to suffer from stress and burnout.
Health care practitioners working in mental health settings experience particularly high levels of distress and are often further distressed when they receive feedback that is critical of their care. The intervention, will support practitioners to address some causes of stress and burnout - namely dissatisfaction with levels of care they can provide and poor team culture and relationships.
In summary, this study works in overt ways to transform the care experiences and care and treatment of people with acute mental health, aims to enhance health care team culture and has the potential to positively impact on mental health of both patients and staff. Lastly, it may, through improvement activity that is integral to the intervention, positively impact on how services are delivered and the facilities they are delivered in."
- Conditions
- Patient Participation
- Being tested
- Person Centered Practice, Interview
- Keywords
- mental health, patient feedback, person centered practice development
- Medical subject headings
- Patient Participation, Psychological Well-Being
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Person Centered PracticeOther
Staff will be asked to:
- Complete two surveys on two occasions, once before the intervention sessions and once following the last session. The first survey is views on patient feedback and the other is about the workplace culture and how person-centred it is.
- Attend 6 x 2 hour facilitated workshops which will involve getting ready to work with patient feedback, establishing values and visions for the intervention group, critically reviewing the ways patients are offered the opportunity to give feedback
- Engage in changes in practice (e.g. how staff offer patients the opportunity to provide feedback and the way staff make changes in response to this feedback);
- Attend a final focus group to evaluate the workshop programme.
InterviewOther
Interviews will be used to gather views about how easy or difficult it is to give feedback and how it feels to consider and/or give feedback
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Patient participants | Current inpatients within the acute mental health ward in which the study is taking place. Receives: Other: Interview | |
| Staff participants | Staff working within the acute mental health ward in which the study is taking place including nursing, mental, occupational therapy, estate and management team members Receives: Other: Person Centered Practice |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Feasibility
To understand the feasibility and acceptability of a team based intervention designed to help mental health teams listen to and act on patient experience feedback.
Measured: June 2023
Secondary outcomes (9)
Facilitator preparation
What preparation does it take for a facilitator to be able to deliver the intervention as designed?
Measured: June 2023
Engagement
How feasible is it for a mental health team to engage with the intervention?
Measured: June 2023
Acceptability
How acceptable is the intervention to the clinical team?
Measured: June 2023
Recruitment
What are our recruitment rates for patients/staff participants
Measured: June 2023
Time for recruitment
What time is required to gain recruitment of patients and staff into the study?
Measured: June 2023
Methods evaluation
Do the methods for evaluating the impact of the intervention produce data that can be readily used to meaningfully assess the effectiveness of the intervention?
Measured: June 2023
Engagement in evaluation
To what extent do participants engage with the evaluation methods?
Measured: June 2023
Acceptability of evaluation
How acceptable are the methods used to evaluate the intervention to the participants?
Measured: June 2023
Future sample calculation
Can the use of the person-centred practice index enable calculation of effect size that will enable sample calculation estimation for a future effectiveness study?
Measured: June 2023
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted2 Nov 2022
- Study start24 Dec 2022
- Primary completion12 Sep 2024
- Study completion12 Sep 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Patient ParticipationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 9 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- NHS Grampian
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Dr Deborah Baldie, Principal investigator, NHS Grampian
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05603325
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1-089-22
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 28 Oct 2022
- Last updated
- 5 Jun 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Jun 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Facilitating the Use of Patient Experience Feedback to Improve Mental Health Inpatient Services - a Feasibility and Acceptability Study.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05603325
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1-089-22
- Conditions
- Patient Participation
- Keywords
- mental health, patient feedback, person centered practice development
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 9 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- NHS GrampianOther government
- Study start
- 24 Dec 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 12 Sep 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 12 Sep 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 2 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Aim: This study aims to assess how feasible and acceptable it is to deliver facilitated team meetings, designed to support mental health teams to listen and learn from patient feedback and how helpful and feasible the evaluation methods are.
There is evidence that patients within inpatient mental health services find it difficult to share care experiences and those working in such services find it challenging to listen and act on care experience data. There is also evidence that staff burnout is higher among mental health nurses than it is in other parts of the health service.
Intervention: A team, made up of nurses, doctors, Allied Health Professionals and health care support workers working in an inpatient mental health services will engage in a 6 stage, facilitated intervention. This includes developing a more effective team culture by: getting ready for engaging with patient feedback; establishing values and vision for care experience and team work; discussing issues associated with trying to provide positive care experiences; analysis of care experiences; making change happen; reflection, evaluation and celebrating success.
Evaluation: Feasibility and acceptability will be assessed by considering views of participants and the facilitator on the intervention and ability for it to be delivered as planned. We will also consider facilitator; researcher and participants' views on the appropriateness of the evaluation methods and assess if we can achieve 50% staff response rates to a survey-person-centred practice index(PCPI). We will assess if the following methods help evaluate impact: care experiences using data from Care Opinion; complaints and feedback cards; improvement efforts made by the team in response to feedback; PCPI scores to assess changes in team culture and lastly, observations made during team meetings to assess change in team culture over time and staff survey about attitudes and beliefs about patient feedback.
Detailed description
This study is to support health care practitioners working in acute mental health settings to build their skills and confidence in making sense of patient feedback; changing care routines; changing their ways of interacting with patients and families and with each other so that their team culture and care experience will be more person-centred.
Patient Rights (Scotland) Act 2011 requires NHS boards to listen and act on patient feedback. Previous research shows that healthcare staff working within mental health services find it challenging to listen and act on feedback. It also shows that changes they make in response to feedback tend to focus on the physical environment and not on how care is delivered or how healthcare staff behave. This study is designed to explore how these challenges can be overcome.
Some studies have, helpfully highlighted a number of factors that enhance the likelihood that teams will be able to actively engage with and act on feedback. Specifically, a number of studies have found that teams greatly benefit from facilitated support to engage effectively with feedback. There remains little understanding of what facilitation looks like or what tools are helpful in supporting learning and improving activity so if we are to become better at improving care experiences we need to urgently test interventions designed to provide such support and to evaluate them in holistic ways to understand their impact.
Health and social care services globally are exploring ways of enhancing the well-being of their workforce. NHS Grampian are committed to this and have a staff support programme, much of this current work is focused on helping people whose wellbeing has been negatively affected by work. It is necessary that we find ways in which we can support teams to be proactive about their individual and collective wellbeing which can be a protective factor against being negatively affected by team culture. Health care practitioners are also persons and as such have a need to connect with their beliefs and values. We know that health care professionals who are supported to work in ways that are consistent with their values are more likely to be able and available to offer person-centred care and are less likely to suffer from stress and burnout.
Health care practitioners working in mental health settings experience particularly high levels of distress and are often further distressed when they receive feedback that is critical of their care. The intervention, will support practitioners to address some causes of stress and burnout - namely dissatisfaction with levels of care they can provide and poor team culture and relationships.
In summary, this study works in overt ways to transform the care experiences and care and treatment of people with acute mental health, aims to enhance health care team culture and has the potential to positively impact on mental health of both patients and staff. Lastly, it may, through improvement activity that is integral to the intervention, positively impact on how services are delivered and the facilities they are delivered in."
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Patient participants | – | Other: InterviewCurrent inpatients within the acute mental health ward in which the study is taking place. |
| Staff participants | – | Other: Person Centered PracticeStaff working within the acute mental health ward in which the study is taking place including nursing, mental, occupational therapy, estate and management team members |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Patients who are currently inpatients within the acute mental health ward where the study is taking place. Staff members who work within the acute mental health ward where the study is taking place.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Person Centered PracticeStaff will be asked to: * Complete two surveys on two occasions, once before the intervention sessions and once following the last session. The first survey is views on patient feedback and the other is about the workplace culture and how person-centred it is. * Attend 6 x 2 hour facilitated workshops which will involve getting ready to work with patient feedback, establishing values and visions for the intervention group, critically reviewing the ways patients are offered the opportunity to give feedback * Engage in changes in practice (e.g. how staff offer patients the opportunity to provide feedback and the way staff make changes in response to this feedback); * Attend a final focus group to evaluate the workshop programme. | Other | Staff participants |
| InterviewInterviews will be used to gather views about how easy or difficult it is to give feedback and how it feels to consider and/or give feedback | Other | Patient participants |
Primary outcome
Feasibility
Time frame: June 2023
To understand the feasibility and acceptability of a team based intervention designed to help mental health teams listen to and act on patient experience feedback.
9 secondary outcomes
Facilitator preparation
Time frame: June 2023
Engagement
Time frame: June 2023
Acceptability
Time frame: June 2023
Recruitment
Time frame: June 2023
Time for recruitment
Time frame: June 2023
Methods evaluation
Time frame: June 2023
Engagement in evaluation
Time frame: June 2023
Acceptability of evaluation
Time frame: June 2023
Future sample calculation
Time frame: June 2023
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Jun 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Patient Participation
Recruiting
At-home Breast Oncology Care Delivered With E-health Solutions
Patient Engagement, Patient Activation
Recruiting
Designing a Large Language Model Architecture for Shared Decision Making and Informed Intentions
Shared Decision Making, Health Literacy
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
PREVENT HPV -Related Cancers Trial
HPV Vaccination, Uptake Vaccination
Active, not recruiting
PREWELL Digital Well-being Promotion Intervention With the BitHabit App
General Mental Health and Well-Being, Mental Disorders
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
A Prospective Non-interventional Observational Study to Observe Long-term Treatment and Outcomes in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH) Patients
Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Dr Deborah Baldie principal investigator
NHS Grampian
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Patient Participation, run by NHS Grampian at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Jun 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Feasibility (time frame: June 2023). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Jun 2026.