Search

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]

Aim: To explore the organizational context in which Type 2 diabetes structured group education is provided. Methods: Four Clinical Commissioning Groups in England providing Type 2 diabetes structured self‐management education participated in a qualitative study exploring the context for provision of that education. Using UK National Diabetes Audit returns, two Clinical Commissioning Groups were selected that had non‐attendance rates of ≤25%, and two that had non‐attendance rates of ≥50%. Between May 2016 and August 2017, 20 interviews were conducted with Clinical Commissioning Group staff including: commissioners, healthcare professionals, managers, general practitioners and diabetes educators. Data gathering was prolonged as it proved challenging to engage with healthcare staff as a result of frequent local restructuring and service disruption. Results: Local audits revealed discrepancies in basic data such as referral and attendance numbers compared with national audit data. There was a commonality in the themes identified from interviews: diabetes education was rarely embedded in service structure; where education uptake was poor, a lack of central support to delivery teams was noticeable; and where education uptake was positive, delivery teams were actively engaged, sometimes relying on enthusiastic individuals. Both situations put the local sustainability of diabetes education at risk. Conclusions: There appears to be a link between attendance rates and organizational issues, therefore, when considering how to increase attendance rates, the state of the diabetes education infrastructure should be reviewed. Good uptake of diabetes education can be too reliant on the enthusiastic commitment of small teams or individuals delivering the education. What's new?: Research into lack of uptake of diabetes structured self‐management education (DSSME) has not previously considered how organizations affect attendance.Absence of communication between the teams providing DSSME and their senior management structure can impede the effectiveness of delivery teams.Clinical teams delivering DSSME are frequently expected to provide administration, marketing and promotional support without proper resources or guidance.Successful implementation of DSSME frequently relies on a few dedicated staff, leaving even the most exemplary delivery of education vulnerable to changes in staffing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Performance measures are increasingly widely used in health care and have an important role in quality. However, field studies of what organizations are doing when they collect and report performance measures are rare. An opportunity for such a study was presented by a patient safety program requiring intensive care units (ICUs) in England to submit monthly data on central venous catheter bloodstream infections (CVC-BSIs). Methods: We conducted an ethnographic study involving ∼855 hours of observational fieldwork and 93 interviews in 17 ICUs plus 29 telephone interviews. Findings: Variability was evident within and between ICUs in how they applied inclusion and exclusion criteria for the program, the data collection systems they established, practices in sending blood samples for analysis, microbiological support and laboratory techniques, and procedures for collecting and compiling data on possible infections. Those making decisions about what to report were not making decisions about the same things, nor were they making decisions in the same way. Rather than providing objective and clear criteria, the definitions for classifying infections used were seen as subjective, messy, and admitting the possibility of unfairness. Reported infection rates reflected localized interpretations rather than a standardized dataset across all ICUs. Variability arose not because of wily workers deliberately concealing, obscuring, or deceiving but because counting was as much a social practice as a technical practice. Conclusions: Rather than objective measures of incidence, differences in reported infection rates may reflect, at least to some extent, underlying social practices in data collection and reporting and variations in clinical practice. The variability we identified was largely artless rather than artful: currently dominant assumptions of gaming as responses to performance measures do not properly account for how categories and classifications operate in the pragmatic conduct of health care. These findings have important implications for assumptions about what can be achieved in infection reduction and quality improvement strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]