Search

Background: Measures exist to improve early recognition of, and response to deteriorating patients in hospital. Despite these, 7% of the deaths reported to the National Reporting and Learning System from acute hospitals in 2015 related to a failure to recognise or respond to deterioration. Interventions have been developed that allow patients and relatives to escalate patient deterioration to a critical care outreach team. However, there is not a strong evidence base for the clinical effectiveness of these interventions, or patients' ability to recognise deterioration. Aims: The aims of this study were as follows. (a) To identify methods of involving patients in recognising deterioration in hospital, generated by health professionals. (b) To develop and evaluate an identified method of patient involvement in practice, and explore its feasibility and acceptability from the perspectives of patients. Methods: The study used a mixed-methods design. A measure to capture patient-reported wellness during observation was developed (Patient Wellness Questionnaire) through focus group discussion with health professionals and patients, and piloted on inpatient wards. Results: There was limited uptake where patients were asked to record ratings of their wellness using the Patient Wellness Questionnaire themselves. However, where the researcher asked patients about their wellness using the Patient Wellness Questionnaire and recorded their responses during observation, this was acceptable to most patients. Conclusions: This study has developed a measure that can be used to routinely collect patient-reported wellness during observation in hospital and may potentially improve early detection of deterioration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention provides a way to systematically collect patient feedback to support service improvement. To provide a sustainable mechanism for the PRASE intervention, a 2‐year improvement project explored the potential for hospital volunteers to facilitate the collection of PRASE feedback. Objective: To explore the implementation of the PRASE intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers from the perspectives of key stakeholders. Design: A qualitative case study design was utilized across three acute NHS trusts in the United Kingdom between March 2016 and October 2016. Ward level data (staff interviews; action planning meeting recordings; implementation fidelity information) were analysed taking a pen portrait approach. We also carried out focus groups with hospital volunteers and interviews with voluntary services/patient experience staff, which were analysed thematically. Results: Whilst most ward staff reported feeling engaged with the intervention, there were discordant views on its use and usefulness. The hospital volunteers were positive about their involvement, and on some wards, worked with staff to produce actions to improve services. The voluntary services/patient experience staff participants emphasised the need for PRASE to sit within an organisations' wider governance structure. Conclusion: From the perspective of key stakeholders, hospital volunteers facilitating the collection of PRASE feedback is a feasible means of implementing the PRASE intervention. However, the variability around ward staff being able to use the feedback to make changes to services demonstrates that it is this latter part of the PRASE intervention cycle that is more problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patient safety measurement remains a global challenge. Patients are an important but neglected source of learning; however, little is known about what patients can add to our understanding of safety. We sought to understand the incidence and nature of patient-reported safety concerns in hospital. Methods Feedback about the experience of safety within hospital was gathered from 2471 inpatients as part of a multicentre, waitlist cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention, undertaken within 33 wards across three English NHS Trusts, between May 2013 and September 2014. Patient volunteers, supported by researchers, developed a classification framework of patient-reported safety concerns from a random sample of 231 reports. All reports were then classified using the patient-developed categories. Following this, all patient-reported safety concerns underwent a two-stage clinical review process for identification of patient safety incidents. Results Of the 2471 inpatients recruited, 579 provided 1155 patient-reported incident reports. 14 categories were developed for classification of reports, with communication the most frequently occurring (22%), followed by staffing issues (13%) and problems with the care environment (12%). 406 of the total 1155 patient incident reports (35%) were classified by clinicians as a patient safety incident according to the standard definition. 1 in 10 patients (264 patients) identified a patient safety incident, with medication errors the most frequently reported incident. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients can provide insight about safety that complements existing patient safety measurement, with a frequency of reported patient safety incidents that is similar to those obtained via case note review. However, patients provide a unique perspective about hospital safety which differs from and adds to current definitions of patient safety incidents. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702; preresults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Solutions to quality and safety problems exist within healthcare organisations, but to maximise the learning from these positive deviants, we first need to identify them. This study explores using routinely collected, publicly available data in England to identify positively deviant services in one region of the country. Design A mixed methods study undertaken July 2014 to February 2015, employing expert discussion, consensus and statistical modelling to identify indicators of quality and safety, establish a set of criteria to inform decisions about which indicators were robust and useful measures, and whether these could be used to identify positive deviants. Setting Yorkshire and Humber, England. Participants None - analysis based on routinely collected, administrative English hospital data. Main outcome measures We identified 49 indicators of quality and safety from acute care settings across eight data sources. Twenty-six indicators did not allow comparison of quality at the sub-hospital level. Of the 23 remaining indicators, 12 met all criteria and were possible candidates for identifying positive deviants. Results Four indicators (readmission and patient reported outcomes for hip and knee surgery) offered indicators of the same service. These were selected by an expert group as the basis for statistical modelling, which supported identification of one service in Yorkshire and Humber showing a 50% positive deviation from the national average. Conclusion Relatively few indicators of quality and safety relate to a service level, making meaningful comparisons and local improvement based on the measures difficult. It was possible, however, to identify a set of indicators that provided robust measurement of the quality and safety of services providing hip and knee surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare professionals work in emotionally charged settings; yet, little is known about the role of emotion in ensuring safe patient care. This article presents current knowledge in this field, drawing upon psychological approaches and evidence from clinical settings. We explore the emotions that health professionals experience in relation to making a medical error and describe the impact on healthcare professionals and on their professional and patient relationships. We also explore how positive and negative emotions can contribute to clinical decision making and affect responses to clinical situations. Evidence to date suggests that emotion plays an integral role in patient safety. Implications for training, practice and research are discussed in addition to strategies to facilitate health services to understand and respond to the influence of emotion in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare a new co-designed, patient incident reporting tool with three established methods of detecting patient safety incidents and identify if the same incidents are recorded across methods. Method: Trained research staff collected data from inpatients in nine wards in one university teaching hospital during their stay. Those classified as patient safety incidents were retained. We then searched for patient safety incidents in the corresponding patient case notes, staff incident reports and reports to the Patient Advice and Liaison Service specific to the study wards. Results: In the nine wards, 329 patients were recruited to the study, of which 77 provided 155 patient reports. From these, 68 patient safety incidents were identified. Eight of these were also identified from case note review, five were also identified in incident reports, and two were also found in the records of a local Patient Advice and Liaison Service. Reports of patients covered a range of events from their immediate environment, involving different health professionals and spanning the entire spectrum of care. Conclusion: Patient safety incidents reported by patients are unlikely to be found through other established methods of incident detection. When hospitalized patients are asked about their care, they can provide a unique perspective on patient safety. Co-designed, real-time reporting could be a helpful addition to existing methods of gathering patient safety intelligence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Measures exist to improve early recognition of, and response to, deteriorating patients in hospital. However, deteriorating patients continue to go unrecognized. To address this, interventions have been developed that invite patients and relatives to escalate patient deterioration to a rapid response team ( RRT). Objective To systematically review articles that describe these interventions and investigate their effectiveness at reducing preventable deterioration. Search strategy Following PRISMA guidelines, four electronic databases and two web search engines were searched to identify literature investigating patient and relative led escalation. Inclusion criteria Articles investigating the implementation or use of systems involving patients and relatives in the detection of clinical patient deterioration and escalation of patient care to address any clinical or non-clinical outcomes were included. Articles' eligibility was validated by a second reviewer (20%). Data extraction Data were extracted according to pre-defined criteria. Data synthesis Narrative synthesis was applied to included studies. Main results Nine empirical studies and 36 grey literature articles were included in the review. Limited studies were conducted to establish the clinical effectiveness of patient and relative led escalation. Instead, studies investigated the impact of this intervention on health-care staff and available resources. Although appropriate, this reflects the infancy of research in this area. Patients and relatives did not overwhelm resources by activating the RRT. However, they did activate it to address concerns unrelated to patient deterioration. Conclusions Activating a RRT may not be the most appropriate or cost-effective method of resolving non-life-threatening concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The feasibility and acceptability of implementing video reflexive ethnography (VRE) as an improvement tool in acute maternity services. The statement in the "Acknowledgements" section should read: The authors would like to thank Mr Dileep Wijeratne for his extensive support in both the set up and delivery of this research project. [Extracted from the article]