Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This study found staff used a range of formal and informal intelligence about patient experience, and that mixed teams commanded a greater range of resources for service improvement.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Louise Locock, Chris Graham, Jenny King, Stephen Parkin, Alison Chisholm, Catherine Montgomery, Elizabeth Gibbons, Esther Ainley, Jennifer Bostock, Melanie Gager, Neil Churchill, Sue Dopson, Trish Greenhalgh, Angela Martin, John Powell, Steve Sizmur & Sue Ziebland.

Louise Locock 1,2,*, Chris Graham 3, Jenny King 3, Stephen Parkin 1, Alison Chisholm 1, Catherine Montgomery 1, Elizabeth Gibbons 4, Esther Ainley 3, Jennifer Bostock 5, Melanie Gager 6, Neil Churchill 7, Sue Dopson 8, Trish Greenhalgh 1, Angela Martin 1, John Powell 1, Steve Sizmur 3, Sue Ziebland 1

1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
2 Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
3 Picker Institute Europe, Oxford, UK
4 Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
5 Lay representative, Oxford, UK
6 Critical Care, Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, UK
7 Division of Experience, Participation and Equalities, NHS England, London, UK
8 Saïd Business School, Oxford, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.


Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions