Search

Background: Although problems that impair task completion - known as operational failures - are an important focus of concern in primary care, they have remained little studied., Aim: To quantify the time GPs spend on different activities during clinical sessions; to identify the number of operational failures they encounter; and to characterise the nature of operational failures and their impact for GPs., Design and Setting: Mixed-method triangulation study with 61 GPs in 28 NHS general practices in England from December 2018 to December 2019., Method: Time-motion methods, ethnographic observations, and interviews were used., Results: Time-motion data on 7679 GP tasks during 238 hours of practice in 61 clinical sessions suggested that operational failures were responsible for around 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.5% to 5.4%) of all tasks undertaken by GPs and accounted for 3.9% (95% CI = 3.2% to 4.5%) of clinical time. However, qualitative data showed that time-motion methods, which depend on pre-programmed categories, substantially underestimated operational failures. Qualitative data also enabled further characterisation of operational failures, extending beyond those measured directly in the time-motion data (for example, interruptions, deficits in equipment/supplies, and technology) to include problems linked to GPs' coordination role and weaknesses in work systems and processes. The impacts of operational failures were highly consequential for GPs' experiences of work., Conclusion: GPs experience frequent operational failures, disrupting patient care, impairing experiences of work, and imposing burden in an already pressurised system. This better understanding of the nature and impact of operational failures allows for identification of targets for improvement and indicates the need for coordinated action to support GPs., (© The Authors.)

Background: In 2013, the English National Health Service launched the policy of 7-day services to improve care quality and outcomes for weekend emergency admissions., Aims: To determine whether the quality of care of emergency medical admissions is worse at weekends, and whether this has changed during implementation of 7-day services., Methods: Using data from 20 acute hospital Trusts in England, we performed randomly selected structured case record reviews of patients admitted to hospital as emergencies at weekends and on weekdays between financial years 2012-2013 and 2016-2017. Senior doctor ('specialist') involvement was determined from annual point prevalence surveys. The primary outcome was the rate of clinical errors. Secondary outcomes included error-related adverse event rates, global quality of care and four indicators of good practice., Results: Seventy-nine clinical reviewers reviewed 4000 admissions, 800 in duplicate. Errors, adverse events and care quality were not significantly different between weekend and weekday admissions, but all improved significantly between epochs, particularly errors most likely influenced by doctors (clinical assessment, diagnosis, treatment, prescribing and communication): error rate OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; adverse event OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.69; care quality OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87; all adjusted for age, sex and ethnicity. Postadmission in-hospital care processes improved between epochs and were better for weekend admissions (vital signs with National Early Warning Score and timely specialist review). Preadmission processes in the community were suboptimal at weekends and deteriorated between epochs (fewer family doctor referrals, more patients with chronic disease or palliative care designation)., Conclusions and Implications: Hospital care quality of emergency medical admissions is not worse at weekends and has improved during implementation of the 7-day services policy. Causal pathways for the weekend effect may extend into the prehospital setting., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic., Methods: The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Results: Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations., Conclusions: Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support.

Objectives: To explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Qualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers., Methods: We conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method., Setting: National Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020., Participants: Of 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic., Results: Experiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic 'safe space' challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost., Conclusions: Though remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: National standards are commonly used as an improvement strategy in healthcare, but organisations may respond in diverse and sometimes negative ways to external quality demands. This paper describes how a sample of NHS hospital trusts in England responded to the introduction of national standards for 7-day services (7DS), from an organisational behaviour perspective., Methods: We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with executive/director level and clinical staff, in eight NHS trusts that varied in size, location, and levels of specialist staffing at weekends. We explored approaches to implementing standards locally, and the impact of organisational culture and local context on organisational response., Results: Senior staff in the majority of trusts described a focus on hitting targets and achieving compliance with the standards. Compliance-based responses were associated with a hierarchical organisational culture and focus on external performance. In a minority of trusts senior staff described mobilising commitment-based strategies. In these trusts senior staff reframed the external standards in terms of organisational values, and used co-operative strategies for achieving change. Trusts that took a commitment-based approach tended to be described as having a developmental organisational culture and a history of higher performance across the board. Audit data on 7DS showed improvement against standards for most trusts, but commitment-focused trusts were less likely to demonstrate improvements on the 7DS audit. The ability of trusts to respond to external standards was limited when they were under pressure due to a history of overall poor performance or resource limitations., Conclusions: National standards and audit for service-level improvement generate different types of response in different local settings. Approaches to driving improvement nationally need to be accompanied by resources and tailored support for improvement, taking into account local context and organisational culture.

Background: The increased mortality risk associated with weekend admission to hospital (the 'weekend effect') has been reported across many health systems. More recently research has focused on causal mechanisms. Variations in the organisation and delivery of in-hospital care between weekends and weekdays have been identified, but this is not always to the detriment of weekend admissions, and the impact on mortality is uncertain. The insights of frontline staff and patients have been neglected. This article reports a qualitative study of patients and clinicians, to explore their views on quality and safety of care at weekends., Methods: We conducted focus groups and interviews with clinicians and patients with experience of acute medical care, recruited from three UK hospital Trusts. We analysed the data using a thematic analysis approach, aided by the use of NVivo, to explore quality and safety of care at weekends., Results: We held four focus groups and completed six in-depth interviews, with 19 clinicians and 12 patients. Four threats to quality and safety were identified as being more prominent at weekends, relating to i) the rescue and stabilisation of sick patients; ii) monitoring and responding to deterioration; iii) timely accurate management of the therapeutic pathway; iv) errors of omission and commission., Conclusions: At weekends patients and staff are well aware of suboptimal staffing numbers, skill mix and access to resources at weekends, and identify that emergency admissions are prioritised over those already hospitalised. The consequences in terms of quality and safety and patient experience of care are undesirable. Our findings suggest the value of focusing on care processes and systems resilience over the weekends, and how these can be better supported, even in the limited resource environment that exists in many hospitals at weekends.

Aims: To explore the expectations of prolapse surgery held by women before that surgery and to examine reasons why such expectations were met, or not met., Methods: Qualitative study using one-to-one interviews with women who had undergone prolapse surgery in a large UK teaching hospital. Interviews were conducted by a third party, trained interviewer using a piloted interview guide, but women were encouraged to speak freely. Transcripts were analyzed based on the constant comparative method and interviews continued until no new themes emerged., Results: Fifty-two women were contacted; 32 took part. Twenty-eight women's interviews were used for analysis, after pilot interviews with four women. Median age was 58 (32-86), 19 were Caucasian, nine of South Indian ethnicity. Anticipated benefits of surgery included global themes of cure without specific definitions, focusing on physical symptoms. A few women anticipated psychological benefit. Most women had expectations of a permanent cure. After surgery, most women considered their surgery a success, for physical symptom improvement. Some women had modified their prior expectations (downwards) and success was interpreted in this light. Provision of information about recovery and symptom resolution was felt to be inadequate by the majority., Conclusions: In this study, resolution of physical symptoms was the prevalent expectation, along with restoration of "normality." Normality was often redefined during recovery, indicating the complexity of assessing fulfillment of expectations, and that specific goal-setting may be inadequate. A chronic illness framework for prolapse may be helpful. Information exchange, especially in the post-operative period can be improved., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose: Research on patient safety campaigns has mostly concentrated on large-scale multi-organisation efforts, yet locally led improvement is increasingly promoted. The purpose of this paper is to characterise the design and implementation of an internal patient safety campaign at a large acute National Health Service hospital trust with a view to understanding how to optimise such campaigns., Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted a qualitative study of a campaign that sought to achieve 12 patient safety goals. The authors interviewed 19 managers and 45 frontline staff, supplemented by 56 hours of non-participant observation. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Findings: The campaign was motivated by senior managers' commitment to patient safety improvement, a series of serious untoward incidents, and a history of campaign-style initiatives at the trust. While the campaign succeeded in generating enthusiasm and focus among managers and some frontline staff, it encountered three challenges. First, though many staff at the sharp end were aware of the campaign, their knowledge, and acceptance of its content, rationale, and relevance for distinct clinical areas were variable. Second, the mechanisms of change, albeit effective in creating focus, may have been too limited. Third, many saw the tempo of the campaign as too rapid. Overall, the campaign enjoyed some success in raising the profile of patient safety. However, its ability to promote change was mixed, and progress was difficult to evidence because of lack of reliable measurement., Originality/value: The study shows that single-organisation campaigns may help in raising the profile of patient safety. The authors offer important lessons for the successful running of such campaigns.

Two understandings of the dynamics of power developed by Foucault have been extensively used in analyses of contemporary healthcare: disciplinary power and governmentality. They are sometimes considered alternative or even contradictory conceptual frameworks. Here, we seek to deploy them as complementary ways of making sense of the complexities of healthcare organisation today. We focus on efforts to improve quality and safety in three UK hospitals. We find a prominent role for disciplinary power, including a panoptic gaze that is to some extent internalised by professionals. We suggest, however, that the role of disciplinary power relies for its impact on complementary strategies that are more akin to governmentality. These strategies foster organisational contexts that are receptive to disciplinary work. More fundamentally, we find that both disciplinary power and governmentality work on subjectivities in rather a different manner from that suggested by conventional accounts. We offer an alternative, less individualised and more socialised, understanding of the way in which power acts upon subjectivity and behaviour in professional contexts., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to explore the views of strategic level stakeholders on leadership for quality and safety in the UK National Health Service., Methods: We interviewed 107 stakeholders with close involvement in quality and safety as professionals, managers, policy makers or commentators. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Results: Participants identified the crucial role of leadership in ensuring safe, high quality care. Consistent with the academic literature, participants distinguished between traditional hierarchical 'concentrated' leadership associated with particular positions, and distributed leadership involving those with particular skills and abilities across multiple institutional levels. They clearly and explicitly saw a role for distributed leadership, emphasizing that all staff had responsibility for leading on patient safety and quality. They described the particular value of leadership coalitions between managers and clinicians. However, concern was expressed that distributed leadership could mean confusion about who was in charge, and that at national level it risked creating a vacuum of authority, mixed messages, and conflicting expectations and demands. Participants also argued that hierarchically based leadership was needed to complement distributed leadership, not least to provide focus, practical support and expertise, and managerial clout., Conclusions: Strategic level stakeholders see the most effective form of leadership for quality and safety as one that blends distributed and concentrated leadership. Policy and academic prescriptions about leadership may benefit from the sophisticated and pragmatic know-how of insiders who work in organizations that remain permeated by traditional structures, cleavages and power relationships.