Search

Background The Patient Safety Huddle (PSH) is a brief multidisciplinary daily meeting held to discuss threats to patient safety and actions to mitigate risk. Despite growing interest and application of huddles as a mechanism for improving safety, evidence of their impact remains limited. There is also variation in how huddles are conceived and implemented with insufficient focus on their fidelity (the extent to which delivered as planned) and potential ways in which they might influence outcomes. The Huddle Up for Safer Healthcare (HUSH) project attempted to scale up the implementation of patient safety huddles (PSHs) in five hospitals – 92 wards - across three UK NHS Trusts. This paper aims to assess their fidelity, time to embed, and impact on teamwork and safety culture. Methods A multi-method Developmental Evaluation was conducted. The Stages of Implementation Checklist (SIC) was used to determine time taken to embed PSHs. Observations were used to check embedded status and fidelity of PSH. A Teamwork and Safety Climate survey (TSC) was administered at two time-points: pre- and post-embedding. Changes in TSC scores were calculated for Trusts, job role and clinical speciality. Results Observations confirmed PSHs were embedded in 64 wards. Mean fidelity score was 4.9/9. PSHs frequently demonstrated a ‘fear free’ space while Statistical Process Control charts and historical harms were routinely omitted. Analysis showed a positive change for the majority (26/27) of TSC questions and the overall safety grade of the ward. Conclusions PSHs are feasible and effective for improving teamwork and safety culture, especially for nurses. PSH fidelity criteria may need adjusting to include factors deemed most useful by frontline staff. Future work should examine inter-disciplinary and role-based differences in TSC outcomes.

Against a background of an ageing population, rising emergency admissions and a policy direction moving towards providing care in the least intensive setting, this paper presents the dramatic results achieved in a 22‐week pilot of undivided health and social care replicating the Castlefields study and using Unique Care principles. In the context of practice‐based commissioning, where GP practices develop and commission services that represent the best model of care and use of resources for their patients, the potential for creating savings from this approach are discussed.

Despite an explosion of interest in improving safety and reducing error in health care, one important aspect of patient safety that has received little attention is a systematic approach to education and training for the whole health care workforce. This article describes an evaluation of an innovative multiprofessional, team-based training program that embeds patient safety within quality improvement methods.Kirkpatrick's "levels of evaluation" model was adopted to evaluate the program in health organizations across one city in the north of England. Questionnaires were used to assess reaction of participants to the program (Level 1). Improvements in patient safety knowledge and patient safety culture (Level 2) were assessed using a 12-item multiple-choice questionnaire and a culture questionnaire. Interviews and project-specific quantitative measurements were used to assess changes in professional practice and patient outcomes (Levels 3 and 4).All aspects of the program were positively received by participants. Few participants completed the MCQ at both time points, but those who did showed improvement in knowledge. There were some small but significant improvements in patient safety culture. Interviews revealed a number of additional benefits beyond the specific problems addressed. Most importantly, 8 of the 11 teams showed improvements in patient safety practices and/or outcomes.This program is an example of interprofessional education in practice and demonstrates that team-based learning using quality improvement methods is feasible and can be effective in improving patient safety, but requires time and space for participants. Alignment with continuing education arrangements could support mainstream adoption of this approach within organizations.

Describes an audit of inter‐profession communications among hospital, community health and social services concerning hospital admission. Information from 150 patient admissions (50 from each of three general practices after a target date) was gathered from both community and hospital sources. The results were used to audit the transfer policy operated by Airedale NHS Trust. The audit design incorporated an element of research, the results of which were used to inform the interpretation of the audit results and to suggest appropriate recommendations for change. Recommendations included the introduction of a pre‐admissions checklist, specific changes to the nursing documentation, measures to improve the speed of information transfer, and the clarification of responsibilities for initiating contact across the hospital‐community interface when patients with existing contacts in community services are admitted to hospital. Concludes that the introduction of supplementary research to an otherwise traditional audit cycle strengthened the resulting recommendations.

Background: There is evidence of unsafe care in healthcare systems globally. Interventions to implement recommended practice often have modest and variable effects. Ideally, selecting and adapting interventions according to local contexts should enhance effects. However, the means by which this can happen is seldom systematic, based on theory, or made transparent. This work aimed to demonstrate the applicability, feasibility, and acceptability of a theoretical domains framework implementation (TDFI) approach for co-designing patient safety interventions.Methods: We worked with three hospitals to support the implementation of evidence-based guidance to reduce the risk of feeding into misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes. Our stepped process, informed by the TDF and key principles from implementation literature, entailed: involving stakeholders; identifying target behaviors; identifying local factors (barriers and levers) affecting behavior change using a TDF-based questionnaire; working with stakeholders to generate specific local strategies to address key barriers; and supporting stakeholders to implement strategies. Exit interviews and audit data collection were undertaken to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this approach.Results: Following audit and discussion, implementation teams for each Trust identified the process of checking the positioning of nasogastric tubes prior to feeding as the key behavior to target. Questionnaire results indicated differences in key barriers between organizations. Focus groups generated innovative, generalizable, and adaptable strategies for overcoming barriers, such as awareness events, screensavers, equipment modifications, and interactive learning resources. Exit interviews identified themes relating to the benefits, challenges, and sustainability of this approach. Time trend audit data were collected for 301 patients over an 18-month period for one Trust, suggesting clinically significant improved use of pH and documentation of practice following the intervention.Conclusions: The TDF is a feasible and acceptable framework to guide the implementation of patient safety interventions. The stepped TDFI approach engages healthcare professionals and facilitates contextualization in identifying the target behavior, eliciting local barriers, and selecting strategies to address those barriers. This approach may be of use to implementation teams and policy makers, although our promising findings confirm the need for a more rigorous evaluation; a balanced block evaluation is currently underway.