Search

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Emergency hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge from hospital are considered a marker for the quality of hospital care, patient experience, the discharge process and integration with community services. This paper describes the frequency and variations in cause of emergency readmissions at 30 and 90 days following discharge after acute stroke from two stroke units. Methods: Retrospective data collection of Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) and Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) of consecutive acute stroke hospital discharges over 24 months from 2017 to 2019 from two specialist stroke units in England. HES data were used to calculate the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI). Covariates were analysed for their association with readmission rate, including: age; gender; CCI; length of stay for first stroke admission; living alone; discharge to a care home; discharge receiving stroke specialist early supported discharge (ESD) rehabilitation and stroke severity as determined by National Institute for Health Stroke Scale on stroke admission. Results: From 2017 to 2019 there were 1999 live discharges with a primary diagnosis of stroke. Both hospitals had a trend of increasing readmission rates with increasing stroke severity and comorbidity. Longer length of stroke admission, especially for patients with increasing stroke severity, and patients receiving ESD rehabilitation after discharge reduced 90‐day readmissions. This association was stronger at 90 days than at 30 days. Different readmission event rates were found at 30 and 90 days and when events were compared between the two hospitals. Conclusion: Understanding differences in readmission event rates between hospitals at 30 and 90 days can support local planning of patient needs in the first weeks after stroke discharge and to investigate ways for hospital to reduce the impact of readmission. It is recommended that stroke services use both 30 and 90‐day readmissions to inform service evaluation and improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims, and objectives: Decisions about whether to refer or admit a patient to an intensive care unit (ICU) are clinically, organizationally, and ethically challenging. Many explicit and implicit factors influence these decisions, and there is substantial variability in how they are made, leading to concerns about access to appropriate treatment for critically ill patients. There is currently no guidance to support doctors making these decisions. We developed an intervention with the aim of supporting doctors to make more transparent, consistent, patient‐centred, and ethically justified decisions. This paper reports on the implementation of the intervention at three NHS hospitals in England and evaluates its feasibility in terms of usage, acceptability, and perceived impact on decision making. Methods: A mixed method study including quantitative assessment of usage and qualitative interviews. Results: There was moderate uptake of the framework (28.2% of referrals to ICU across all sites during the 3‐month study period). Organizational structure and culture affected implementation. Concerns about increased workload in the context of limited resources were obstacles to its use. Doctors who used it reported a positive impact on decision making, with better articulation and communication of reasons for decisions, and greater attention to patient wishes. The intervention made explicit the uncertainty inherent in these decisions, and this was sometimes challenging. The patient and family information leaflets were not used. Conclusions: While it is feasible to implement an intervention to improve decision making around referral and admission to ICU, embedding the intervention into existing organizational culture and practice would likely increase adoption. The doctor‐facing elements of the intervention were generally acceptable and were perceived as making ICU decision making more transparent and patient‐centred. While there remained difficulties in articulating the clinical reasoning behind some decisions, the intervention offers an important step towards establishing a more clinically and ethically sound approach to ICU admission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Educational workshops are a commonly used quality improvement intervention. Often delivered by credible local health professionals who do not necessarily have skills in pedagogy, it can be challenging to achieve high intervention fidelity. This paper summarizes the fidelity assessment of a workshop designed to increase the uptake of a primary care alcohol screening recommendation. Method Delivered in a single health region, the workshop comprised separate sessions delivered by three local health professionals, plus two role plays delivered by a commercial company. Sessions were tailored to local barriers. Meetings were held with presenters and an outline of the barriers was provided. Two researchers attended the workshop, rating the number of specified barriers targeted by presenters and their quality of delivery. Participant responsiveness was measured through attendees' feedback and intervention dose was calculated as the proportion of health professionals who attended and proportion of general practices represented. Results Exposure was low, with 62 of 545 health professionals from 30 of a possible 80 practices attending. Sixty-five per cent of the specified barriers were targeted. There was variability in quality of delivery and participant responsiveness; challenges included potential mixed messages, overreliance on didactic methods and certain barriers appearing easier to target than others. Conclusions The framework provided a rounded assessment of intervention fidelity: intervention coverage was low, adherence was moderate and there was variability in the quality of delivery across presenters. Future studies testing the effectiveness of interventions delivered by local experts with and without brief training in pedagogy/behaviour change would be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The objectives of this paper were to investigate quality of care for individuals with osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine if those most in need had the outcome of a total joint replacement (TJR). Key quality indicators were involvement in treatment decisions, appropriate information provision and outcomes of care. Methods A longitudinal study was conducted on individuals newly referred to an orthopaedic specialist at one hospital in North West England. A total of 268 participants were recruited consecutively and followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months. Validated measurement tools such as, a Visual Analogue Scale for pain and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) assessed pain and physical functioning. Mean scores on the outcome measures were estimated and plotted over time by joint affected and whether or not the participant had a TJR by 12 months. Results Most participants (82%) felt that they were involved in the decision about their care, although 21% reported that they had not received a diagnosis of OA. Information was not provided on OA, pain management and exercise to 58%, 65% and 57% of participants, respectively. However, 98% of the 109 having a TJR reported receiving information about the procedure. Among the 118 known not to have had a TJR, pain and physical functioning remained relatively stable over time. Conclusion It appears that patients with the most severe symptoms of pain and physical functioning were selected for TJR. However, care for individuals with OA could be improved by providing standard information on OA in general and pain management and exercise. In particular, effective strategies for the implementation of the research evidence and guidelines are required to improve quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objectives Little is known about the quality of occupational health care provided to National Health Service (NHS) staff. We designed the first national clinical audits of occupational health care in England. We chose to audit depression and back pain as health care workers have high levels of both conditions compared with other employment sectors. The aim of the audits was to drive up quality of care for staff with these conditions. The object of this paper is to describe how we developed an audit methodology and overcame challenges presented by the organization and delivery of occupational health care for NHS staff. Methods We designed two retrospective case note audits which ran simultaneously. Sites submitted up to 40 cases for each audit. We used duplicate case entry to test inter-rater reliability and performed selection bias checks. Participants received their site's audit results, benchmarked against the national average, within 4 months of the end of the data entry period. We used electronic voting at a results dissemination conference to inform implementation activities. Results Occupational Health departments providing services to 278 (83%) trusts in England participated in one or both audits. Median kappa scores were above 0.7 for both pilot and full audits, indicating 'good' levels of inter-rater reliability. In total, 79% of participants at a dissemination conference said that they had changed their clinical practice either during data collection (52%) or following receipt of their audit results (27%). Conclusions Clinical audit can be conducted successfully in the occupational health setting. We obtained meaningful data that have stimulated local and national quality improvement activities. Our methodology would be transferable to occupational health settings outside the NHS and in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale Routine collection of outcome measures is advocated to improve quality of care. However, there has been scant investigation of how measurement tools are used in clinical practice and what impact they may have. This paper compares two neuro-rehabilitation teams, one which routinely used standardized measurement tools and the other which did not. We explore differences in communication and clinical decision making within multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to illuminate the influence measurement tools could have on clinical practice. Method Non-participant observation of MDT meetings in two neurological rehabilitation units in England. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with at least one member of each profession in each team. Grounded theory techniques were used to analyse the data. Results Differences in team members' communication within MDT meetings underscored differences in the process of clinical decision making within the teams. Using measurement tools provided a shared understanding to facilitate communication by focusing discussion on the patient's abilities rather than individual professionals' contributions. This led to differences in the way team members identified the nature and cause of patients' problems, monitored their progress and planned for discharge. They provided a 'neutral ground' to reach a shared perspective between professionals, thereby avoiding conflict. Externally, use of the tools enabled objective discussion with patients and their families about their progress and was a vehicle to facilitate giving bad news. Conclusion Using standardized measurement tools can promote a patient-focused approach to care, thus facilitating treatment planning and clinical decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]