Search

Objective The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice. Methods We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services. Results Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families. Conclusions Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These les

Objective The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice. Methods We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services. Results Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families. Conclusions Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These les

Introduction: A common neurosurgical condition, chronic subdural haematoma (cSDH) typically affects older people with other underlying health conditions. The care of this potentially vulnerable cohort is often, however, fragmented and suboptimal. In other complex conditions, multidisciplinary guidelines have transformed patient experience and outcomes, but no such framework exists for cSDH. This paper outlines a protocol to develop the first comprehensive multidisciplinary guideline from diagnosis to long-term recovery with cSDH. Methods: The project will be guided by a steering group of key stakeholders and professional organisations and will feature patient and public involvement. Multidisciplinary thematic working groups will examine key aspects of care to formulate appropriate, patient-centered research questions, targeted with evidence review using the GRADE framework. The working groups will then formulate draft clinical recommendations to be used in a modified Delphi process to build consensus on guideline contents. Conclusions: We present a protocol for the development of a multidisciplinary guideline to inform the care of patients with a cSDH, developed by cross-disciplinary working groups and arrived at through a consensus-building process, including a modified online Delphi.

This Element introduces and critically reflects on the contribution of implementation science to healthcare improvement efforts. Grounded in several disciplines, implementation science is the study of strategies to promote the uptake of evidence-based interventions into healthcare practice and policy. The field's focus is threefold. First, it encompasses theory and empirical research focused on exploring, identifying, and understanding the systems, behaviours, and practices that influence successful implementation. Second, it examines the evaluation of strategies to address barriers or enablers to implementation in a given context. Last, it increasingly seeks to understand the process of implementation itself: what actually gets implemented, and when, why, and how? Despite the growing body of evidence, challenges remain. Many important messages remain buried in the literature, and their impact on implementation efforts in routine practice may be limited. The challenge is not just to get evidence into practice, but also to get implementation science into practice. This title is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.

Introduction At least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap. Methods and analysis This is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences - Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery. Ethics and dissemination The study received the following approvals: South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made avail

Background: Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of ‘what good looks like’. Objective: We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. Methods: We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non-participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. Results: We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem-sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. Conclusions: This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework—For Us—that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital-based maternity units.

Background: Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of ‘what good looks like’. Objective: We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. Methods: We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non-participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. Results: We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem-sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. Conclusions: This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework—For Us—that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital-based maternity units.

Background: Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of ‘what good looks like’. Objective: We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. Methods: We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non-participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. Results: We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem-sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. Conclusions: This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework—For Us—that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital-based maternity units.

Background: Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of ‘what good looks like’. Objective: We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. Methods: We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non-participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. Results: We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem-sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. Conclusions: This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework—For Us—that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital-based maternity units.

Background Many people who have common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, also have some psychotic experiences. These experiences are associated with higher clinical complexity, poor treatment response, and negative clinical outcomes. Psychological interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for people with psychotic experiences. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) synthesise the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions to reduce psychotic experiences and their associated distress and (2) identify key components of effective interventions. Methods Our search strategy will combine terms for (1) psychological interventions, (2) psychotic experiences, and (3) symptoms associated with psychotic experiences. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, all Cochrane databases, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and EconLit. Our primary outcome is the proportion of people who recovered or remitted from psychotic experiences after the intervention. Our secondary outcomes are changes in positive psychotic symptoms, negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning (including social, occupational, and academic), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Two independent reviewers will judge each study against pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and will extract study characteristics, outcome data, and intervention components. Risk of bias and methodological quality will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the Drummond Checklist. Results will be synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Discussion The identification of effective psychological interventions and of specific components associa

Background Many people who have common mental disorders, such as depression and anxiety, also have some psychotic experiences. These experiences are associated with higher clinical complexity, poor treatment response, and negative clinical outcomes. Psychological interventions have the potential to improve outcomes for people with psychotic experiences. The aims of this systematic review are to (1) synthesise the evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of psychological interventions to reduce psychotic experiences and their associated distress and (2) identify key components of effective interventions. Methods Our search strategy will combine terms for (1) psychological interventions, (2) psychotic experiences, and (3) symptoms associated with psychotic experiences. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, all Cochrane databases, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and EconLit. Our primary outcome is the proportion of people who recovered or remitted from psychotic experiences after the intervention. Our secondary outcomes are changes in positive psychotic symptoms, negative psychotic symptoms, depression, anxiety, functioning (including social, occupational, and academic), quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Two independent reviewers will judge each study against pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and will extract study characteristics, outcome data, and intervention components. Risk of bias and methodological quality will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and the Drummond Checklist. Results will be synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. Discussion The identification of effective psychological interventions and of specific components associa

Background Healthcare organisations often fail to harvest and make use of the ‘soft intelligence’ about safety and quality concerns held by their own personnel. We aimed to examine the role of formal channels in encouraging or inhibiting employee voice about concerns.

Measurement of quality and safety has an important role in improving healthcare, but is susceptible to unintended consequences. One frequently made argument is that optimising the benefits from measurement requires controlling the risks of blame, but whether it is possible to do this remains unclear. We examined responses to a programme known as the NHS Safety Thermometer (NHS-ST). Measuring four common patient harms in diverse care settings with the goal of supporting local improvement, the programme explicitly eschews a role for blame. The study design was ethnographic. We conducted 115 h of observation across 19 care organisations and conducted 126 interviews with frontline staff, senior national leaders, experts in the four harms, and the NHS-ST programme leadership and development team. We also collected and analysed relevant documents. The programme theory of the NHS-ST was based in a logic of measurement for improvement: the designers of the programme sought to avoid the appropriation of the data for any purpose other than supporting improvement. However, organisational participants - both at frontline and senior levels – were concerned that the NHS-ST functioned latently as a blame allocation device. These perceptions were influenced, first, by field-level logics of accountability and managerialism and, second, by specific features of the programme, including public reporting, financial incentives and ambiguities about definitions that amplified the concerns. In consequence, organisational participants, while they identified some merits of the programme, tended to identify and categorise it as another example of performance management, rich in potential for blame. These findings indicate that the search to optimise the benefits of measurement by controlling the risks of blame remains challenging. They further suggest that a well-intentioned programme theory, while necessary, may not be sufficient for achieving goals for improvement in healthcare systems domi

Measurement of quality and safety has an important role in improving healthcare, but is susceptible to unintended consequences. One frequently made argument is that optimising the benefits from measurement requires controlling the risks of blame, but whether it is possible to do this remains unclear. We examined responses to a programme known as the NHS Safety Thermometer (NHS-ST). Measuring four common patient harms in diverse care settings with the goal of supporting local improvement, the programme explicitly eschews a role for blame. The study design was ethnographic. We conducted 115 h of observation across 19 care organisations and conducted 126 interviews with frontline staff, senior national leaders, experts in the four harms, and the NHS-ST programme leadership and development team. We also collected and analysed relevant documents. The programme theory of the NHS-ST was based in a logic of measurement for improvement: the designers of the programme sought to avoid the appropriation of the data for any purpose other than supporting improvement. However, organisational participants - both at frontline and senior levels – were concerned that the NHS-ST functioned latently as a blame allocation device. These perceptions were influenced, first, by field-level logics of accountability and managerialism and, second, by specific features of the programme, including public reporting, financial incentives and ambiguities about definitions that amplified the concerns. In consequence, organisational participants, while they identified some merits of the programme, tended to identify and categorise it as another example of performance management, rich in potential for blame. These findings indicate that the search to optimise the benefits of measurement by controlling the risks of blame remains challenging. They further suggest that a well-intentioned programme theory, while necessary, may not be sufficient for achieving goals for improvement in healthcare systems domi

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research increasingly relies on long-term studies involving use and re-use of biological samples and data stored in large repositories or "biobanks" over lengthy periods, often raising questions about whether and when a re-consenting process should be activated. We sought to investigate the views on re-consent of participants in a longitudinal biobank. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 24 people who were participating in a longitudinal biobank. Their views were elicited using a semi-structured interview schedule and scenarios based on a hypothetical biobank. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: What participants identified as requiring new consent was not a straightforward matter predictable by algorithms about the scope of the consent, but instead was contingent. They assessed whether proposed new research implied a fundamental alteration in the underlying character of the biobank and whether specific projects were within the scope of the original consent. What mattered most to them was that the cooperative bargain into which they had entered was maintained in good faith. They saw re-consent as one important safeguard in this bargain. In determining what required re-consent, they deployed two logics. First, they used a logic of boundaries, where they sought to detect any possible rupture with their existing framework of cooperation. Second, they used a logic of risk, where they assessed proposed research for any potential threats for them personally or the research endeavour. When they judged that a need for re-consent had been activated, participants saw the process as way of re-actualising and renewing the cooperative bargain. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perceptions of research as a process of mutual co-operation between volunteer and researcher were fundamental to their views on consent. Consenting arrangements for biobanks should respect the cooperative values that are impor

Large scale collection and analysis of data on patients’ experiences and outcomes have become staples of successful health systems worldwide. The systems go by various names—including registries, quality registries, clinical databases, clinical audits, and quality improvement programmes—but all collect standardised information on patients’ diagnoses, care processes, and outcomes, enabling systematic comparison and analysis across multiple sites. Hundreds of what we will term, for simplicity, “registries,” now exist around the world. The United Kingdom is home to over 50 clinical audit programmes, the United States has over 110 federally qualified registries certified to report quality metrics, and Sweden, perhaps the registry epicentre, has over 100, covering conditions from birth to frail old age. These registries have had far reaching effects. They facilitate public reporting, retrospective and prospective research, professional development, and service improvement. They reveal variations in practices, processes, and outcomes, and identify targets for improvement. In the UK, they have been associated with many notable successes, including improvements in management of cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer, and joint replacement.

Large scale collection and analysis of data on patients’ experiences and outcomes have become staples of successful health systems worldwide. The systems go by various names—including registries, quality registries, clinical databases, clinical audits, and quality improvement programmes—but all collect standardised information on patients’ diagnoses, care processes, and outcomes, enabling systematic comparison and analysis across multiple sites. Hundreds of what we will term, for simplicity, “registries,” now exist around the world. The United Kingdom is home to over 50 clinical audit programmes, the United States has over 110 federally qualified registries certified to report quality metrics, and Sweden, perhaps the registry epicentre, has over 100, covering conditions from birth to frail old age. These registries have had far reaching effects. They facilitate public reporting, retrospective and prospective research, professional development, and service improvement. They reveal variations in practices, processes, and outcomes, and identify targets for improvement. In the UK, they have been associated with many notable successes, including improvements in management of cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer, and joint replacement.

Large scale collection and analysis of data on patients’ experiences and outcomes have become staples of successful health systems worldwide. The systems go by various names—including registries, quality registries, clinical databases, clinical audits, and quality improvement programmes—but all collect standardised information on patients’ diagnoses, care processes, and outcomes, enabling systematic comparison and analysis across multiple sites. Hundreds of what we will term, for simplicity, “registries,” now exist around the world. The United Kingdom is home to over 50 clinical audit programmes, the United States has over 110 federally qualified registries certified to report quality metrics, and Sweden, perhaps the registry epicentre, has over 100, covering conditions from birth to frail old age. These registries have had far reaching effects. They facilitate public reporting, retrospective and prospective research, professional development, and service improvement. They reveal variations in practices, processes, and outcomes, and identify targets for improvement. In the UK, they have been associated with many notable successes, including improvements in management of cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer, and joint replacement.

Objectives We aimed to evaluate whether a large-scale two-phase quality improvement programme achieved its aims and to characterise the influences on achievement. Setting National Health Service (NHS) in England. Participants NHS staff. Interventions The programme sought to (1) develop a shared national, regional and locally aligned safety focus for 4 high-cost, high volume harms; (2) establish a new measurement system based on a composite measure of ‘harm-free’ care and (3) deliver improved outcomes. Phase I involved a quality improvement collaborative intended to involve 100 organisations; phase II used financial incentives for data collection. Measures Multimethod evaluation of the programme. In phase I, analysis of regional plans and of rates of data submission and clinical outcomes reported to the programme. A concurrent process evaluation was conducted of phase I, but only data on submission rates and clinical outcomes were available for phase II. Results A context of extreme policy-related structural turbulence impacted strongly on phase I. Most regions' plans did not demonstrate full alignment with the national programme; most fell short of recruitment targets and attrition in attendance at the collaborative meetings occurred over time. Though collaborative participants saw the principles underlying the programme as attractive, useful and innovative, they often struggled to convert enthusiasm into change. Developing the measurement system was arduous, yet continued to be met by controversy. Data submission rates remained patchy throughout phase I but improved in reach and consistency in phase II in response to financial incentives. Some evidence of improvement in clinical outcomes over time could be detected but was hard to interpret owing to variability in the denominators. Conclusions These findings offer important lessons for large-scale improvement programmes, particularly when they seek to develop novel concepts and measures. External contexts may exert

Background Centrally-led performance management regimes using standard-setting, monitoring and incentives have become a prominent feature of infection prevention and control (IPC) in health systems. Aim We aimed to characterise views and experiences of regulation and performance management relating to IPC in English hospitals. Methods We analysed two qualitative datasets containing 139 interviews with healthcare workers and managers. Data directly relevant to performance management and IPC were extracted. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Findings Participants reported that performance management regimes had mobilised action around specific infections. The benefits of establishing organisational structures of accountability were seen in empirical evidence of decreasing infection rates. Performance management was not, however, experienced as wholly benign, and setting targets in one area was seen to involve risks of ‘tunnel vision’ and the marginalisation of other potentially important issues. Financial sanctions were viewed particularly negatively; performance management was associated with risks of creating a culture of fearfulness, suppressing learning and disrupting inter-professional relationships. Conclusions Centrally-led performance management may have some important roles in infection prevention and control, but identifying where it is appropriate and determining its limits is critical. Persisting with harsh regimes may affect relationships and increase resistance to continued improvement efforts, but leaving all improvement to local teams may also be a flawed strategy.

Objectives We aimed to evaluate whether a large-scale two-phase quality improvement programme achieved its aims and to characterise the influences on achievement. Setting National Health Service (NHS) in England. Participants NHS staff. Interventions The programme sought to (1) develop a shared national, regional and locally aligned safety focus for 4 high-cost, high volume harms; (2) establish a new measurement system based on a composite measure of ‘harm-free’ care and (3) deliver improved outcomes. Phase I involved a quality improvement collaborative intended to involve 100 organisations; phase II used financial incentives for data collection. Measures Multimethod evaluation of the programme. In phase I, analysis of regional plans and of rates of data submission and clinical outcomes reported to the programme. A concurrent process evaluation was conducted of phase I, but only data on submission rates and clinical outcomes were available for phase II. Results A context of extreme policy-related structural turbulence impacted strongly on phase I. Most regions' plans did not demonstrate full alignment with the national programme; most fell short of recruitment targets and attrition in attendance at the collaborative meetings occurred over time. Though collaborative participants saw the principles underlying the programme as attractive, useful and innovative, they often struggled to convert enthusiasm into change. Developing the measurement system was arduous, yet continued to be met by controversy. Data submission rates remained patchy throughout phase I but improved in reach and consistency in phase II in response to financial incentives. Some evidence of improvement in clinical outcomes over time could be detected but was hard to interpret owing to variability in the denominators. Conclusions These findings offer important lessons for large-scale improvement programmes, particularly when they seek to develop novel concepts and measures. External contexts may exert

Background Centrally-led performance management regimes using standard-setting, monitoring and incentives have become a prominent feature of infection prevention and control (IPC) in health systems. Aim We aimed to characterise views and experiences of regulation and performance management relating to IPC in English hospitals. Methods We analysed two qualitative datasets containing 139 interviews with healthcare workers and managers. Data directly relevant to performance management and IPC were extracted. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Findings Participants reported that performance management regimes had mobilised action around specific infections. The benefits of establishing organisational structures of accountability were seen in empirical evidence of decreasing infection rates. Performance management was not, however, experienced as wholly benign, and setting targets in one area was seen to involve risks of ‘tunnel vision’ and the marginalisation of other potentially important issues. Financial sanctions were viewed particularly negatively; performance management was associated with risks of creating a culture of fearfulness, suppressing learning and disrupting inter-professional relationships. Conclusions Centrally-led performance management may have some important roles in infection prevention and control, but identifying where it is appropriate and determining its limits is critical. Persisting with harsh regimes may affect relationships and increase resistance to continued improvement efforts, but leaving all improvement to local teams may also be a flawed strategy.

Large scale collection and analysis of data on patients’ experiences and outcomes have become staples of successful health systems worldwide. The systems go by various names—including registries, quality registries, clinical databases, clinical audits, and quality improvement programmes—but all collect standardised information on patients’ diagnoses, care processes, and outcomes, enabling systematic comparison and analysis across multiple sites. Hundreds of what we will term, for simplicity, “registries,” now exist around the world. The United Kingdom is home to over 50 clinical audit programmes, the United States has over 110 federally qualified registries certified to report quality metrics, and Sweden, perhaps the registry epicentre, has over 100, covering conditions from birth to frail old age. These registries have had far reaching effects. They facilitate public reporting, retrospective and prospective research, professional development, and service improvement. They reveal variations in practices, processes, and outcomes, and identify targets for improvement. In the UK, they have been associated with many notable successes, including improvements in management of cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer, and joint replacement.

Large scale collection and analysis of data on patients’ experiences and outcomes have become staples of successful health systems worldwide. The systems go by various names—including registries, quality registries, clinical databases, clinical audits, and quality improvement programmes—but all collect standardised information on patients’ diagnoses, care processes, and outcomes, enabling systematic comparison and analysis across multiple sites. Hundreds of what we will term, for simplicity, “registries,” now exist around the world. The United Kingdom is home to over 50 clinical audit programmes, the United States has over 110 federally qualified registries certified to report quality metrics, and Sweden, perhaps the registry epicentre, has over 100, covering conditions from birth to frail old age. These registries have had far reaching effects. They facilitate public reporting, retrospective and prospective research, professional development, and service improvement. They reveal variations in practices, processes, and outcomes, and identify targets for improvement. In the UK, they have been associated with many notable successes, including improvements in management of cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer, and joint replacement.

Large scale collection and analysis of data on patients’ experiences and outcomes have become staples of successful health systems worldwide. The systems go by various names—including registries, quality registries, clinical databases, clinical audits, and quality improvement programmes—but all collect standardised information on patients’ diagnoses, care processes, and outcomes, enabling systematic comparison and analysis across multiple sites. Hundreds of what we will term, for simplicity, “registries,” now exist around the world. The United Kingdom is home to over 50 clinical audit programmes, the United States has over 110 federally qualified registries certified to report quality metrics, and Sweden, perhaps the registry epicentre, has over 100, covering conditions from birth to frail old age. These registries have had far reaching effects. They facilitate public reporting, retrospective and prospective research, professional development, and service improvement. They reveal variations in practices, processes, and outcomes, and identify targets for improvement. In the UK, they have been associated with many notable successes, including improvements in management of cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer, and joint replacement.

Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively.

Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively.

Background - Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods - Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results - We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions - Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.

Background - Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods - Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results - We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions - Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.

Background Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.

Background Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.

Background - Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods - Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results - We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions - Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.

Background - Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods - Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results - We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions - Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission reco

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission reco

Objective: To independently evaluate the impact of the second phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI2) on a range of patient safety measures. Design: A controlled before and after design. Five substudies: survey of staff attitudes; review of case notes from high risk (respiratory) patients in medical wards; review of case notes from surgical patients; indirect evaluation of hand hygiene by measuring hospital use of handwashing materials; measurement of outcomes (adverse events, mortality among high risk patients admitted to medical wards, patients' satisfaction, mortality in intensive care, rates of hospital acquired infection). Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Participants: Nine hospitals participating in SPI2 and nine matched control hospitals. Intervention The SPI2 intervention was similar to the SPI1, with somewhat modified goals, a slightly longer intervention period, and a smaller budget per hospital. Results: One of the scores (organisational climate) showed a significant (P=0.009) difference in rate of change over time, which favoured the control hospitals, though the difference was only 0.07 points on a five point scale. Results of the explicit case note reviews of high risk medical patients showed that certain practices improved over time in both control and SPI2 hospitals (and none deteriorated), but there were no significant differences between control and SPI2 hospitals. Monitoring of vital signs improved across control and SPI2 sites. This temporal effect was significant for monitoring the respiratory rate at both the six hour (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.010) and 12 hour (2.4, 1.1 to 5.0; P=0.002) periods after admission. There was no significant effect of SPI for any of the measures of vital signs. Use of a recommended system for scoring the severity of pneumonia improved from 1.9% (1/52) to 21.4% (12/56) of control and from 2.0% (1/50) to 41.7% (25/60) of SPI2 patients. This temporal ch

Objective: To independently evaluate the impact of the second phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI2) on a range of patient safety measures. Design: A controlled before and after design. Five substudies: survey of staff attitudes; review of case notes from high risk (respiratory) patients in medical wards; review of case notes from surgical patients; indirect evaluation of hand hygiene by measuring hospital use of handwashing materials; measurement of outcomes (adverse events, mortality among high risk patients admitted to medical wards, patients' satisfaction, mortality in intensive care, rates of hospital acquired infection). Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Participants: Nine hospitals participating in SPI2 and nine matched control hospitals. Intervention The SPI2 intervention was similar to the SPI1, with somewhat modified goals, a slightly longer intervention period, and a smaller budget per hospital. Results: One of the scores (organisational climate) showed a significant (P=0.009) difference in rate of change over time, which favoured the control hospitals, though the difference was only 0.07 points on a five point scale. Results of the explicit case note reviews of high risk medical patients showed that certain practices improved over time in both control and SPI2 hospitals (and none deteriorated), but there were no significant differences between control and SPI2 hospitals. Monitoring of vital signs improved across control and SPI2 sites. This temporal effect was significant for monitoring the respiratory rate at both the six hour (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.010) and 12 hour (2.4, 1.1 to 5.0; P=0.002) periods after admission. There was no significant effect of SPI for any of the measures of vital signs. Use of a recommended system for scoring the severity of pneumonia improved from 1.9% (1/52) to 21.4% (12/56) of control and from 2.0% (1/50) to 41.7% (25/60) of SPI2 patients. This temporal ch

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission reco

Objective: To independently evaluate the impact of the second phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI2) on a range of patient safety measures. Design: A controlled before and after design. Five substudies: survey of staff attitudes; review of case notes from high risk (respiratory) patients in medical wards; review of case notes from surgical patients; indirect evaluation of hand hygiene by measuring hospital use of handwashing materials; measurement of outcomes (adverse events, mortality among high risk patients admitted to medical wards, patients' satisfaction, mortality in intensive care, rates of hospital acquired infection). Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Participants: Nine hospitals participating in SPI2 and nine matched control hospitals. Intervention The SPI2 intervention was similar to the SPI1, with somewhat modified goals, a slightly longer intervention period, and a smaller budget per hospital. Results: One of the scores (organisational climate) showed a significant (P=0.009) difference in rate of change over time, which favoured the control hospitals, though the difference was only 0.07 points on a five point scale. Results of the explicit case note reviews of high risk medical patients showed that certain practices improved over time in both control and SPI2 hospitals (and none deteriorated), but there were no significant differences between control and SPI2 hospitals. Monitoring of vital signs improved across control and SPI2 sites. This temporal effect was significant for monitoring the respiratory rate at both the six hour (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.010) and 12 hour (2.4, 1.1 to 5.0; P=0.002) periods after admission. There was no significant effect of SPI for any of the measures of vital signs. Use of a recommended system for scoring the severity of pneumonia improved from 1.9% (1/52) to 21.4% (12/56) of control and from 2.0% (1/50) to 41.7% (25/60) of SPI2 patients. This temporal ch

Objective: To independently evaluate the impact of the second phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI2) on a range of patient safety measures. Design: A controlled before and after design. Five substudies: survey of staff attitudes; review of case notes from high risk (respiratory) patients in medical wards; review of case notes from surgical patients; indirect evaluation of hand hygiene by measuring hospital use of handwashing materials; measurement of outcomes (adverse events, mortality among high risk patients admitted to medical wards, patients' satisfaction, mortality in intensive care, rates of hospital acquired infection). Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Participants: Nine hospitals participating in SPI2 and nine matched control hospitals. Intervention The SPI2 intervention was similar to the SPI1, with somewhat modified goals, a slightly longer intervention period, and a smaller budget per hospital. Results: One of the scores (organisational climate) showed a significant (P=0.009) difference in rate of change over time, which favoured the control hospitals, though the difference was only 0.07 points on a five point scale. Results of the explicit case note reviews of high risk medical patients showed that certain practices improved over time in both control and SPI2 hospitals (and none deteriorated), but there were no significant differences between control and SPI2 hospitals. Monitoring of vital signs improved across control and SPI2 sites. This temporal effect was significant for monitoring the respiratory rate at both the six hour (adjusted odds ratio 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.010) and 12 hour (2.4, 1.1 to 5.0; P=0.002) periods after admission. There was no significant effect of SPI for any of the measures of vital signs. Use of a recommended system for scoring the severity of pneumonia improved from 1.9% (1/52) to 21.4% (12/56) of control and from 2.0% (1/50) to 41.7% (25/60) of SPI2 patients. This temporal ch

Objectives: To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results: Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration - monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items) - there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission reco

OObjectives: We explored the perceptions, views and experiences of diabetes education in people with type 2 diabetes who were participating in a UK randomized controlled trial of methods of education. The intervention arm of the trial was based on DESMOND, a structured programme of group education sessions aimed at enabling self-management of diabetes, while the standard arm was usual care from general practices. Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 adult patients, of whom 19 had attended DESMOND education sessions and 17 had been randomized to receive usual care. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Four principal orientations towards diabetes and its management were identified: `resisters', `identity resisters, consequence accepters', `identity accepters, consequence resisters' and `accepters'. Participants offered varying accounts of the degree of personal responsibility that needed to be assumed in response to the diagnosis. Preferences for different styles of education were also expressed, with many reporting that they enjoyed and benefited from group education, although some reported ambivalence or disappointment with their experiences of education. It was difficult to identify striking thematic differences between accounts of people on different arms of the trial, although there was some very tentative evidence that those who attended DESMOND were more accepting of a changed identity and its implications for their management of diabetes. Discussion: No one single approach to education is likely to suit all people newly diagnosed with diabetes, although structured group education may suit many. This paper identifies varying orientations and preferences of people with diabetes towards forms of both education and self-management, which should be taken into account when planning approaches to education.

OObjectives: We explored the perceptions, views and experiences of diabetes education in people with type 2 diabetes who were participating in a UK randomized controlled trial of methods of education. The intervention arm of the trial was based on DESMOND, a structured programme of group education sessions aimed at enabling self-management of diabetes, while the standard arm was usual care from general practices. Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 adult patients, of whom 19 had attended DESMOND education sessions and 17 had been randomized to receive usual care. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Four principal orientations towards diabetes and its management were identified: `resisters', `identity resisters, consequence accepters', `identity accepters, consequence resisters' and `accepters'. Participants offered varying accounts of the degree of personal responsibility that needed to be assumed in response to the diagnosis. Preferences for different styles of education were also expressed, with many reporting that they enjoyed and benefited from group education, although some reported ambivalence or disappointment with their experiences of education. It was difficult to identify striking thematic differences between accounts of people on different arms of the trial, although there was some very tentative evidence that those who attended DESMOND were more accepting of a changed identity and its implications for their management of diabetes. Discussion: No one single approach to education is likely to suit all people newly diagnosed with diabetes, although structured group education may suit many. This paper identifies varying orientations and preferences of people with diabetes towards forms of both education and self-management, which should be taken into account when planning approaches to education.

OObjectives: We explored the perceptions, views and experiences of diabetes education in people with type 2 diabetes who were participating in a UK randomized controlled trial of methods of education. The intervention arm of the trial was based on DESMOND, a structured programme of group education sessions aimed at enabling self-management of diabetes, while the standard arm was usual care from general practices. Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 adult patients, of whom 19 had attended DESMOND education sessions and 17 had been randomized to receive usual care. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Four principal orientations towards diabetes and its management were identified: `resisters', `identity resisters, consequence accepters', `identity accepters, consequence resisters' and `accepters'. Participants offered varying accounts of the degree of personal responsibility that needed to be assumed in response to the diagnosis. Preferences for different styles of education were also expressed, with many reporting that they enjoyed and benefited from group education, although some reported ambivalence or disappointment with their experiences of education. It was difficult to identify striking thematic differences between accounts of people on different arms of the trial, although there was some very tentative evidence that those who attended DESMOND were more accepting of a changed identity and its implications for their management of diabetes. Discussion: No one single approach to education is likely to suit all people newly diagnosed with diabetes, although structured group education may suit many. This paper identifies varying orientations and preferences of people with diabetes towards forms of both education and self-management, which should be taken into account when planning approaches to education.

OObjectives: We explored the perceptions, views and experiences of diabetes education in people with type 2 diabetes who were participating in a UK randomized controlled trial of methods of education. The intervention arm of the trial was based on DESMOND, a structured programme of group education sessions aimed at enabling self-management of diabetes, while the standard arm was usual care from general practices. Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 36 adult patients, of whom 19 had attended DESMOND education sessions and 17 had been randomized to receive usual care. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Four principal orientations towards diabetes and its management were identified: `resisters', `identity resisters, consequence accepters', `identity accepters, consequence resisters' and `accepters'. Participants offered varying accounts of the degree of personal responsibility that needed to be assumed in response to the diagnosis. Preferences for different styles of education were also expressed, with many reporting that they enjoyed and benefited from group education, although some reported ambivalence or disappointment with their experiences of education. It was difficult to identify striking thematic differences between accounts of people on different arms of the trial, although there was some very tentative evidence that those who attended DESMOND were more accepting of a changed identity and its implications for their management of diabetes. Discussion: No one single approach to education is likely to suit all people newly diagnosed with diabetes, although structured group education may suit many. This paper identifies varying orientations and preferences of people with diabetes towards forms of both education and self-management, which should be taken into account when planning approaches to education.

Qualitative research can make a valuable contribution to the study of quality and safety in health care. Sound ways of appraising qualitative research are needed, but currently there are many different proposals with few signs of an emerging consensus. One problem has been the tendency to treat qualitative research as a unified field. We distinguish universal features of quality from those specific to methodology and offer a set of minimally prescriptive prompts to assist with the assessment of generic features of qualitative research. In using these, account will need to be taken of the particular method of data collection and methodological approach being used. There may be a need for appraisal criteria suited to the different methods of qualitative data collection and to different methodological approaches. These more specific criteria would help to distinguish fatal flaws from more minor errors in the design, conduct, and reporting of qualitative research. There will be difficulties in doing this because some aspects of qualitative research, particularly those relating to quality of insight and interpretation, will remain difficult to appraise and will rely largely on subjective judgement.

Background Qualitative research makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and healthcare. However, qualitative evidence can be difficult to search for and identify, and the effectiveness of different types of search strategies is unknown. Methods Three search strategies for qualitative research in the example area of support for breast-feeding were evaluated using six electronic bibliographic databases. The strategies were based on using thesaurus terms, free-text terms and broad-based terms. These strategies were combined with recognised search terms for support for breast-feeding previously used in a Cochrane review. For each strategy, we evaluated the recall (potentially relevant records found) and precision (actually relevant records found). Results A total yield of 7420 potentially relevant records was retrieved by the three strategies combined. Of these, 262 were judged relevant. Using one strategy alone would miss relevant records. The broad-based strategy had the highest recall and the thesaurus strategy the highest precision. Precision was generally poor: 96% of records initially identified as potentially relevant were deemed irrelevant. Searching for qualitative research involves trade-offs between recall and precision. Conclusions These findings confirm that strategies that attempt to maximise the number of potentially relevant records found are likely to result in a large number of false positives. The findings also suggest that a range of search terms is required to optimise searching for qualitative evidence. This underlines the problems of current methods for indexing qualitative research in bibliographic databases and indicates where improvements need to be made.

Background Qualitative research makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and healthcare. However, qualitative evidence can be difficult to search for and identify, and the effectiveness of different types of search strategies is unknown. Methods Three search strategies for qualitative research in the example area of support for breast-feeding were evaluated using six electronic bibliographic databases. The strategies were based on using thesaurus terms, free-text terms and broad-based terms. These strategies were combined with recognised search terms for support for breast-feeding previously used in a Cochrane review. For each strategy, we evaluated the recall (potentially relevant records found) and precision (actually relevant records found). Results A total yield of 7420 potentially relevant records was retrieved by the three strategies combined. Of these, 262 were judged relevant. Using one strategy alone would miss relevant records. The broad-based strategy had the highest recall and the thesaurus strategy the highest precision. Precision was generally poor: 96% of records initially identified as potentially relevant were deemed irrelevant. Searching for qualitative research involves trade-offs between recall and precision. Conclusions These findings confirm that strategies that attempt to maximise the number of potentially relevant records found are likely to result in a large number of false positives. The findings also suggest that a range of search terms is required to optimise searching for qualitative evidence. This underlines the problems of current methods for indexing qualitative research in bibliographic databases and indicates where improvements need to be made.