Search

ObjectivesTo review how National Health Service (NHS) Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are using the Learning from Deaths (LfDs) programme to learn from and prevent, potentially preventable deaths.IntroductionPotentially preventable deaths occur worldwide within healthcare organisations. In England, inconsistencies in how NSCTs reviewed, investigated and shared LfDs, resulted in the introduction of national guidance on ‘LfDs’ in 2017. This guidance provides a ‘framework for identifying, reporting, investigating and LfDs’. Amendments to NHS Quality Account regulations, legally require NSCTs in England to report quantitative and qualitative information relating to patient deaths annually. The programme intended NSCTs would share this learning and take measurable action to prevent future deaths.MethodWe undertook qualitative and quantitative secondary data, document analysis of all NSCTs LfDs reports within their 2017/2018 Quality Accounts (n=222).ResultsAll statutory elements of LfDs reporting were reported by 98 out of 222 (44%) NSCTs. The percentage of deaths judged more likely than not due to problems in healthcare was between 0% and 13%. The majority of NSCTs (89%) reported lessons learnt; the most common learning theme was poor communication. 106 out of 222 NSCTs (48%) have shared or plan to share the learning within their own organisation. The majority of NSCTs (86%) reported actions taken and 47% discussed or had a plan for assessment of impact. 37 out of 222 NSCTs (17%) mentioned involvement of bereaved families.ConclusionsThe wide variation in reporting demonstrates that some NSCTs have engaged fully with LfDs, while other NSCTs appear to have disengaged with the programme. This may reveal a disparity in organisational learning and patient safety culture which could result in inequity for bereaved families. Many themes identified from the LfDs reports have previously been identified by national and international reports and inquiries.

Introduction Recruitment to perioperative randomised controlled trials is known to be challenging. Qualitative methods offer insight into barriers and enablers to participation. This is a substudy within a feasibility randomised controlled trial of octreotide infusion during liver transplantation at two National Health Service hospitals, which will evaluate patient and staff experiences of trial processes. By sharing formative understanding from these methods with the trials team we aim to improve staff–patient interactions and hence recruitment rates. Methods and analysis This prospective mixed-methods study will comprise two workstreams. First, after consent to the randomised controlled trial is sought, all patients will be invited to complete a questionnaire to explore their perceptions of the information given to them and motivating factors that influenced their decision to consent or not. Questionnaires will be analysed using descriptive statistics and framework analysis. If the recruitment:approach ratio drops below a predetermined ratio or if there are any specific recruitment concerns from the trials team, a second workstream involving mixed-methods fieldwork will be implemented. This will involve audiorecording of recruitment consultations and a follow-up semistructured interview to explore patients’ perception of their decision-making regarding recruitment. Semistructured interviews will also be conducted with the recruitment team to establish their views about the trial, barriers to recruitment and ways to overcome them. Recruitment consultations will be analysed using Q-QAT methodology and interviews will be analysed using framework analysis. Findings from both workstreams will be formatively fed back to the trials team to enable iterative improvement to recruitment processes. Ethics and dissemination Approval has been granted by Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (ref 20/NW/0071), the Health Research Authority and the local Research and Development offices. A manuscript detailing the summative findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number NCT04941911.

Introduction Perioperative complications have a lasting effect on health-related quality of life and long-term survival. The Royal College of Anaesthetists has proposed the development of perioperative medicine (POM) services as an intervention aimed at improving postoperative outcome, by providing better coordinated care for high-risk patients. The Perioperative Medicine Service for High-risk Patients Implementation Pilot was developed to determine if a specialist POM service is able to reduce postoperative morbidity, failure to rescue, mortality and cost associated with hospital admission. The service involves individualised objective risk assessment, admission to a postoperative critical care unit and follow-up on the surgical ward by the POM team. This paper introduces the service and how it will be evaluated. Methods and analysis of the evaluation A mixed-methods evaluation is exploring the impact of the service. Clinical effectiveness of the service is being analysed using a ‘before and after’ comparison of the primary outcome (the PostOperative Morbidity Score). Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, validated surveys to explore quality of life (EQ-5D) and quality of recovery (Quality of Recovery-15 Score). The impact on costs is being analysed using ‘before and after’ data from the Patient-Level Information and Costing System and the National Schedule of Reference Costs. The perceptions and experiences of staff and patients with the service, and how it is being implemented, are being explored by a qualitative process evaluation. Ethics and dissemination The study was classified as a service evaluation. Participant information sheets and consent forms have been developed for the interviews and approvals required for the use of the validated surveys were obtained. The findings of the evaluation are being used formatively, to make changes in the service throughout implementation. The findings will also be used to inform the potential roll-out of the service to other sites.

IntroductionThe Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) is designed to measure complications after major elective surgery and improve these through feedback of data to clinicians. Previous research suggests that despite the significant resources which go into collecting data for national clinical audits, the information they contain is not always used effectively to improve local services.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a formative process evaluation of PQIP comprising a multisited qualitative study to analyse PQIP’s programme theory, barriers, facilitators and wider contextual factors that influence implementation. The research will be carried out with the PQIP project team and six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected according to geographical location, type of hospital, size and level of engagement with PQIP. We will include one Trust which has not expressed interest in the PQIP for comparison and to explore the role of secular trend in any changes in practice. We will use semi-structured interviews (up to 144 in Trusts and 12 with the project team), non-participant observations (up to 150 hours) and documentary analysis. We will track the lifecycle of perioperative data, exploring the transformations it undergoes from creation to use. We will use framework analysis with categories both from our research questions and from themes emerging from the data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted from the University College London Research Ethics Committee (ref 10375/001). Permissions to conduct research at NHS Trusts have been granted by local Research and Development offices in coordination with the Health Research Authority. We will follow guidelines for data security, confidentiality and information governance. Findings will be shared at regular time points with the PQIP project team to inform the implementation of the programme, and with participating NHS Trusts to help them reflect on how they currently use data for improvement of perioperative services.

IntroductionThe admission of high-risk patients to critical care after surgery is a recommended standard of care. Nevertheless, poor compliance against this recommendation has been repeatedly demonstrated in large epidemiological studies. It is unclear whether this is due to reasons of capacity, equipoise, poor quality clinical care or because hospitals are working creatively to create capacity for augmented care on normal surgical wards. The EPIdemiology of Critical Care after Surgery study aims to address these uncertainties.Methods and analysisOne-week observational cohort study in the UK and Australasia. All patients undergoing inpatient (overnight stay) surgery will be included. All will have prospective data collection on risk factors, surgical procedure and postoperative outcomes including the primary outcome of morbidity (measured using the Postoperative Morbidity Survey on day 7 after surgery) and secondary outcomes including length of stay and mortality. Data will also be collected on critical care referral and admission, surgical cancellations and critical care occupancy. The epidemiology of patient characteristics, processes and outcomes will be described. Inferential techniques (multilevel multivariable regression, propensity score matching and instrumental variable analysis) will be used to evaluate the relationship between critical care admission and postoperative outcome.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service in the UK and equivalent in Australasia. The collection of patient identifiable data without prior consent has been approved by the Confidentiality Advisory Group (England and Wales) and the Public Privacy and Patient Benefit Panel (Scotland). In these countries, patient identifiable data will be used to link prospectively collected data with national registers of death and inpatient administrative data. The study findings will be disseminated using a multimedia approach with the support of our lay collaborators, to patients, public, policy-makers, clinical and academic audiences.