Search

In older people living with frailty, polypharmacy can lead to preventable harm like adverse drug reactions and hospitalization. Deprescribing is a strategy to reduce problematic polypharmacy. All stakeholders should be actively involved in developing a person-centred deprescribing process that involves shared decision-making.To co-design an intervention, supported by a logic model, to increase the engagement of older people living with frailty in the process of deprescribing.Experience-based co-design is an approach to service improvement, which uses service users and providers to identify problems and design solutions. This was used to create a person-centred intervention with the potential to improve the quality and outcomes of the deprescribing process. A 'trigger film' showing older people talking about their healthcare experiences was created and facilitated discussions about current problems in the deprescribing process. Problems were then prioritized and appropriate solutions were developed. The review located the solutions in the context of current processes and procedures. An ideal care pathway and a complex intervention to deliver better care were developed.Older people living with frailty, their informal carers and professionals living and/or working in West Yorkshire, England, UK. Deprescribing was considered in the context of primary care.The current deprescribing process differed from an ideal pathway. A complex intervention containing seven elements was required to move towards the ideal pathway. Three of these elements were prototyped and four still need development. The complex intervention responded to priorities about (a) clarity for older people about what was happening at all stages in the deprescribing process and (b) the quality of one-to-one consultations.Priorities for improving the current deprescribing process were successfully identified. Solutions were developed and structured as a complex intervention. Further work is underway to (a) complete the prototyping of the intervention and (b) conduct feasibility testing.Older people living with frailty (and their informal carers) have made a central contribution, as collaborators, to ensure that a complex intervention has the greatest possible potential to enhance the experience of deprescribing medicines.

The fourth industrial revolution is based on cyber-physical systems and the connectivity of devices. It is currently unclear what the consequences are for patient safety as existing digital health technologies become ubiquitous with increasing pace and interact in unforeseen ways. In this paper, we describe the output from a workshop focused on identifying the patient safety challenges associated with emerging digital health technologies. We discuss six challenges identified in the workshop and present recommendations to address the patient safety concerns posed by them. A key implication of considering the challenges and opportunities for Patient Safety Informatics is the interdisciplinary contribution required to study digital health technologies within their embedded context. The principles underlying our recommendations are those of proactive and systems approaches that relate the social, technical and regulatory facets underpinning patient safety informatics theory and practice.

IntroductionThis paper presents a mixed-methods study protocol that will be used to evaluate a recent implementation of a real-time, centralised hospital command centre in the UK. The command centre represents a complex intervention within a complex adaptive system. It could support better operational decision-making and facilitate identification and mitigation of threats to patient safety. There is, however, limited research on the impact of such complex health information technology on patient safety, reliability and operational efficiency of healthcare delivery and this study aims to help address that gap.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a longitudinal mixed-method evaluation that will be informed by public-and-patient involvement and engagement. Interviews and ethnographic observations will inform iterations with quantitative analysis that will sensitise further qualitative work. Quantitative work will take an iterative approach to identify relevant outcome measures from both the literature and pragmatically from datasets of routinely collected electronic health records.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol has been approved by the University of Leeds Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Ethics Committee (#MEEC 20-016) and the National Health Service Health Research Authority (IRAS No.: 285933). Our results will be communicated through peer-reviewed publications in international journals and conferences. We will provide ongoing feedback as part of our engagement work with local trust stakeholders.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality as a distraction technique in the management of acute pain and anxiety during outpatient hysteroscopy. Design: Parallel group, prospective randomised controlled trial. Setting: UK University Hospital. Methods: Forty consenting, eligible women were randomised to virtual reality intervention (immersive video content as a distraction method) or standard care during outpatient hysteroscopy from August to October 2018. Main outcome measures: Pain and anxiety outcomes were measured as a numeric rating score (scale 0–10). Results: Compared with standard care, women with virtual reality intervention experienced less average pain (score 6.0 versus 3.7, mean difference 2.3, 95% CI 0.61–3.99, P = 0.009) and anxiety (score 5.45 versus 3.3, mean difference 2.15, 95% CI 0.38–3.92, P = 0.02). Conclusion: Virtual reality was effective in reducing pain and anxiety during outpatient hysteroscopy in a mixed‐methods randomised control trial. Its wide potential role in ambulatory gynaecological procedures needs further evaluation. Tweetable abstract: Virtual reality can be used as a part of a multimodal strategy to reduce acute pain and anxiety in patients undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy.

This study aimed to qualitatively develop a conceptual framework for organizational health, within the setting of GP practices in the UK, through a qualitative interview study utilizing aspects from grounded theory. Data saturation was reached after 33 interviews revealing six themes: Strategy, Resources, Leadership, Staff Wellbeing, Capacity for change and Ways of working. The structure of each theme is discussed in detail. By unpicking the elements of organizational health in GP practices in this way, we hope to shift focus from considering down-stream clinical outcomes in isolation to practices taking a more long-term view centered around fostering ongoing high performance.

BackgroundPrehospital feedback is increasingly receiving attention from clinicians, managers and researchers. The effectiveness of feedback in changing professional behaviour and improving clinical performance is strongly evidenced across a range of healthcare settings, but this has not yet been replicated within the prehospital context. Without a firmer evidence base, development in practice relies on isolated initiatives with no clear intervention model or evaluative framework. The aim of this study was to understand how UK ambulance services are currently meeting the challenge of providing prehospital feedback.MethodsThis was a national survey, which formed the first part of a realist evaluation of prehospital feedback. The survey used purposive and snowball sampling. It was advertised on social media and sent to prehospital feedback initiative leads identified through grey literature and networking (n=35). In addition n=8 NHS Ambulance Trusts formally supported this study and identified further initiatives (n=17). Data was analysed using content analysis.ResultsWe received responses from n=41 unique prehospital feedback initiatives, equating to a response rate of 79%. Of these n=27 were currently active. Responses were received from within 10 of the 13 NHS Ambulance Trusts in the UK. Initiatives most commonly provided individual patient outcome feedback to individual frontline ambulance staff members using email format, triggered by a request for feedback (i.e. a pull initiative). Common facilitators were engaged and responsive collaborators, with barriers being information governance and the time and resources involved.ConclusionsThis study suggests that the majority of UK Ambulance Trusts currently have examples of prehospital feedback initiatives within their footprint. In contrast with findings from a recent systematic review, there appear to be more initiatives providing individual patient outcome feedback than performance feedback. To further understand how prehospital feedback initiatives work, we will conduct in-depth case studies of 4 initiatives and develop a programme theory as part of our ongoing realist evaluation.

BackgroundEmergency ambulance staff have a strong desire to receive feedback, but the frequency and effects of prehospital feedback have not yet been explored quantitatively in the UK. Surveys on prehospital feedback prevalence have been conducted in the US, but are limited by retrospective data collection and a potential disconnect in recipients recognising that they were being provided with feedback (Cash et al., 2017; McGuire et al., 2021). Our study seeks to overcome these limitations by collecting data in real-time using a diary study design and providing a clear definition of prehospital feedback: ‘the provision of information to emergency ambulance staff regarding their performance within prehospital practice and/or patient outcomes’. The study aim will be to explore the extent, characteristics, mechanisms and effects of prehospital feedback in the UK from the recipients’ point of view and to describe individual differences in the desire for enhanced feedback.MethodsThis will be an observational mixed-methods study involving a baseline survey, diary entries and a follow-up survey. The emphasis of data collection is quantitative survey data, which is supported by qualitative open-ended survey items that will be integrated using triangulation. Data analysis will involve logistic regression (baseline survey), multilevel modelling (diary entries) and content analysis (qualitative data). The baseline survey includes questions on demographics, feedback frequency and the Feedback Environment Scale (Steelman et al., 2004). Participants will be asked to complete 10 diary entries for an event where feedback is received and 5 diary entries where feedback is desired but not received. Eligible participants will be NHS ambulance staff delivering face-to-face patient care. Power calculations suggest a sample size of n=325 participants.Results and ConclusionThe findings from this study will demonstrate how feedback characteristics, person and environment variables influence reported feedback effects in the prehospital setting and highlight missed opportunities for feedback.

PurposeThe primary aim of this systematic review is to identify, describe and synthesise the published literature on the types and effects of feedback received by emergency ambulance staff. The secondary aim will be to describe the mechanisms and moderators of the effects of prehospital feedback in an organisational context.Design/methodology/approachThe application and effects of feedback for healthcare professionals, to support improved practice, is well researched within the wider healthcare domain. Within a prehospital context, research into feedback has been developing in specific areas such as automated feedback from defibrillators and debrief after simulation. However, to date there has been no systematic review published on the types and effects of feedback available to emergency ambulance staff.FindingsThis study will be a systematic mixed studies review including empirical primary research of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods methodology published in peer-reviewed journals in English. Studies will be included if they explore the concept of feedback as defined in this review, i.e. the systematised provision of information to emergency ambulance staff regarding their performance within prehospital practice and/or patient outcomes. The search strategy will consist of three facets: ambulance staff synonyms, feedback synonyms and feedback content. The databases to be searched from inception are MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL and Web of Science. Study quality will be appraised using the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) developed by Hong et al. (2018). Data analysis will consist of narrative synthesis guided by Popay et al. (2006) following a parallel-results convergent synthesis design.Originality/valueRegistration: PROSPERO (CRD42020162600)

UNSTRUCTURED The fourth industrial revolution is based on cyber-physical systems and the connectivity of devices. It is currently unclear what the consequences are for patient safety as existing digital health technologies become ubiquitous with increasing pace and interact in unforeseen ways. In this paper, we describe the output from a workshop focused on identifying the patient-safety challenges associated with emerging digital health technologies. We present a definition of Patient Safety Informatics that was informed by the workshop and existing literature, discuss the challenges identified in the workshop, and present recommendations to address the patient-safety concerns posed by them. A key implication of considering the challenges and opportunities for Patient Safety Informatics is the interdisciplinary contribution required to study digital health technologies within their embedded context. The principles underlying our recommendations are those of proactive and systems approaches that relate the social, technical and regulatory facets underpinning patient safety informatics theory and practice.

BackgroundPrehospital feedback is increasingly receiving attention from clinicians, managers and researchers. The effectiveness of feedback in changing professional behaviour and improving clinical performance is strongly evidenced across a range of healthcare settings, but this has not yet been replicated within the prehospital context. Without a firmer evidence base, development in practice relies on isolated initiatives with no clear intervention model or evaluative framework. The aim of this study is to understand how UK ambulance services are currently meeting the challenge of providing prehospital feedback and generate an explanatory programme theory.MethodsThis mixed methods study will follow a realist evaluation methodology framework with an explanatory case study research design. A realist approach was selected as it will facilitate development of programme theory by exploring context, mechanisms and outcomes. The study will consist of three phases: a pilot case study, a national survey and three in-depth case studies. Phase 1 and 3 of the study will involve semi-structured qualitative interviews and site visits, whilst phase 2 will consist of a cross-sectional survey sent out to leads of UK prehospital feedback initiatives. This study will draw upon a range of existing theories to aid understanding such as the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, Normalisation Process Theory and Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory.Results and ConclusionThe three phases of this study will allow for cyclical development, testing and refinement of programme theory by describing existing prehospital feedback intervention types and variations in implementation, as well as evaluating their causal mechanisms and outcomes. Study findings will facilitate an understanding of the extent and limitations of current initiatives, with a view towards identifying opportunities for intervention.

Background Global evidence suggests a range of benefits for introducing electronic health record (EHR) systems to improve patient care. However, implementing EHR within healthcare organisations is complex and, in the United Kingdom (UK), uptake has been slow. More research is needed to explore factors influencing successful implementation. This study explored staff expectations for change and outcome following procurement of a commercial EHR system by a large academic acute NHS hospital in the UK. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with 14 members of hospital staff who represented a variety of user groups across different specialities within the hospital. The four components of Normalisation Process Theory (Coherence, Cognitive participation, Collective action and Reflexive monitoring) provided a theoretical framework to interpret and report study findings. Results Health professionals had a common understanding for the rationale for EHR implementation (Coherence). There was variation in willingness to engage with and invest time into EHR (Cognitive participation) at an individual, professional and organisational level. Collective action (whether staff feel able to use the EHR) was influenced by context and perceived user-involvement in EHR design and planning of the implementation strategy. When appraising EHR (Reflexive monitoring), staff anticipated short and long-term benefits. Staff perceived that quality and safety of patient care would be improved with EHR implementation, but that these benefits may not be immediate. Some staff perceived that use of the system may negatively impact patient care. The findings indicate that preparedness for EHR use could mitigate perceived threats to the quality and safety of care. Conclusions Health professionals looked forward to reaping the benefits from EHR use. Variations in level of engagement suggest early components of the implementation strategy were effective, and that more work was needed to involve users in preparing them for use. A clearer understanding as to how staff groups and services differentially interact with the EHR as they go about their daily work was required. The findings may inform other hospitals and healthcare systems on actions that can be taken prior to EHR implementation to reduce concerns for quality and safety of patient care and improve the chance of successful implementation.

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundThe phenomenon of feedback is well-researched within the wider healthcare context, where it is suggested that feedback can improve patient care and patient safety by enhancing clinical performance and staff mental health. Within prehospital care, reviews have been conducted for automated feedback from defibrillators and debrief after simulation, but not on the wider concept of feedback. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, describe and synthesize the published literature on the types and effects of feedback received by emergency ambulance staff. PROSPERO CRD42020162600.Methods/DesignThe search strategy consisted of three facets: ambulance staff synonyms, feedback synonyms and feedback content. Databases searched from inception were MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycInfo, HMIC, CINAHL and Web of Science. Studies were included if they were qualitative or quantitative empirical research exploring the concept of feedback, i.e. the systematised provision of information to emergency ambulance staff regarding their performance within prehospital practice. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and data analysed using narrative synthesis.Results/ConclusionsThe search strategy yielded 2424 articles excluding duplicates. 94 studies met the inclusion criteria after full-text review, of which 36 fleetingly mentioned increased feedback as a solution to improving specific circumstances (e.g. decision-making, burnout). The remaining 58 studies consisted of 48 interventional prehospital feedback studies, 8 non-interventional studies and 2 feasibility studies. Narrative synthesis revealed a wide range of prehospital feedback types with the majority of studies focusing on performance or patient outcome feedback. The effects of feedback encompassed both personal and professional development, such as improved decision-making, reflection and closure. Mechanisms of providing prehospital feedback varied from electronic dashboards to case reviews and performance appraisals. Further empirical research is required to explore whether the published literature reflects current prehospital practice, as well as to determine the when, what, how and why of ambulance staff desiring feedback.

BackgroundInternational studies have shown that the feedback that ambulance staff receive lacks structure, relevance, credibility and routine implementation (Cash, 2017; Morrison, 2017). Research from psychology and implementation science suggests that feedback can change professional behaviour, improve clinical outcomes and positively influence staff mental health (Ivers, 2012; Michie and Williams, 2003). The aim of this study was to explore the experience of ambulance staff regarding current feedback provision and their views on how feedback impacts on patient safety, staff wellbeing and professional development.MethodsA qualitative study conducted as part of a wider study of work-related wellbeing in ambulance staff. 25 semi-structured interviews with prehospital staff in a clinical role from a UK ambulance service sampled using theoretical sampling. Theoretically-informed thematic analysis using psychological theory linked to the self-motives framework for feedback-seeking behaviour.ResultsStudy participants viewed current feedback provision as inadequate and consistently expressed a desire for increased feedback. Participants raised concerns that inadequate feedback could negatively impact on patient safety by preventing learning from mistakes. Enhancing feedback provision was suggested to improve patient safety by supporting professional development and clinical decision-making, through facilitating reflection, knowledge acquisition and professional behaviour change. Similarly, participants thought that enhanced feedback could improve staff wellbeing by enabling closure and encouraging intra-professional dialogue and peer-support. The self-motives framework was useful in interpreting personal and professional motivators for feedback-seeking behaviour within the data.ConclusionsIn accordance with previous research in this area, this study highlights prehospital clinicians’ strong desire for feedback. Furthermore, it suggests that enhancing prehospital feedback could improve patient safety by enriching clinical decision-making and supporting professional development, as well as promote staff wellbeing. Findings from this initial study will be used to guide a PhD programme to address this evidence gap.

BACKGROUND: Electronic prescribing (EP) and electronic hospital pharmacy (EHP) systems are increasingly common. A potential benefit is the extensive data in these systems that could be used to support antimicrobial stewardship, but there is little information on how such data are currently used to support the quality and safety of antimicrobial use. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the literature on secondary use of data (SuD) from EP and EHP systems to support quality and safety of antimicrobial use, to describe any barriers to secondary use and to make recommendations for future work in this field. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search within four databases; we included original research studies that were (1) based on SuD from hospital EP or EHP systems and (2) reported outcomes relating to quality and/or safety of antimicrobial use and/or qualitative findings relating to SuD in this context. RESULTS: Ninety-four full-text articles were obtained; 14 met our inclusion criteria. Only two described interventions based on SuD; seven described SuD to evaluate other antimicrobial stewardship interventions and five described descriptive or exploratory studies of potential applications of SuD. Types of data used were quantitative antibiotic usage data (n = 9 studies), dose administration data (n = 4) and user log data from an electronic dashboard (n = 1). Barriers included data access, data accuracy and completeness, and complexity when using data from multiple systems or hospital sites. CONCLUSIONS: The literature suggests that SuD from EP and EHP systems is potentially useful to support or evaluate antimicrobial stewardship activities; greater system functionality would help to realize these benefits.

BACKGROUND: Due to its complexity, cancer care is increasingly being delivered by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). Few studies have investigated how best to organize and run MTBs to optimize clinical decision making. We developed and evaluated a multicomponent intervention designed to improve the MTB's ability to reach treatment decisions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study during 16 months that evaluated MTB decision making for urological cancer patients at a university hospital in London, UK. After a baseline period, MTB improvement interventions (eg, MTBs checklist, MTB team training, and written guidance) were delivered sequentially. Outcomes measures were the MTB's ability to reach a decision, the quality of information presentation, and the quality of teamwork (as assessed by trained assessors using a previously validated observational assessment tool). The efficacy of the intervention was evaluated using multivariate analyses. RESULTS: There were 1,421 patients studied between December 2009 and April 2, 2011. All outcomes improved considerably between baseline and intervention implementation: the MTB's ability to reach a decision rose from 82.2% to 92.7%, quality of information presentation rose from 29.6% to 38.3%, and quality of teamwork rose from 37.8% to 43.0%. The MTB's ability to reach a treatment decision was related to the quality of available information (r = 0.298; p < 0.05) and quality of teamwork within the MTB (r = 0.348; p < 0.05). The most common barriers to reaching clinical decisions were inadequate radiologic information (n = 77), inadequate pathologic information (n = 51), and inappropriate patient referrals (n = 21). CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary tumor board-delivered treatment is becoming the standard for cancer care worldwide. Our intervention is efficacious and applicable to MTBs and can improve decision making and expedite cancer care.

Background Prescribing errors occur in up to 15% of UK inpatient medication orders. However, junior doctors report insufficient feedback on errors. A barrier preventing feedback is that individual prescribers often cannot be clearly identified on prescribing documentation. Aim To reduce prescribing errors in a UK hospital by improving feedback on prescribing errors. Interventions We developed three linked interventions using plan–do–study–act cycles: (1) name stamps for junior doctors who were encouraged to stamp or write their name clearly when prescribing; (2) principles of effective feedback to support pharmacists to provide feedback to doctors on individual prescribing errors and (3) fortnightly prescribing advice emails that addressed a common and/or serious error. Implementation and evaluation Interventions were introduced at one hospital site in August 2013 with a second acting as control. Process measures included the percentage of inpatient medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name. Outcome measures were junior doctors' and pharmacists' perceptions of current feedback provision (evaluated using quantitative pre-questionnaires and post-questionnaires and qualitative focus groups) and the prevalence of erroneous medication orders written by junior doctors between August and December 2013. Results The percentage of medication orders for which junior doctors stated their name increased from about 10% to 50%. Questionnaire responses revealed a significant improvement in pharmacists' perceptions but no significant change for doctors. Focus group findings suggested increased doctor engagement with safe prescribing. Interrupted time series analysis showed no difference in weekly prescribing error rates between baseline and intervention periods, compared with the control site. Conclusion Findings suggest improved experiences around feedback. However, attempts to produce a measurable reduction in prescribing errors are likely to need a multifaceted approach of which feedback should form part.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, organizational factors appear to have an effect on the quality of decision-making in the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting. We assess the effect of the number of team-members present, number and order of cases, and the timing of meetings on the process of decision-making in MDT meetings. METHODS: Between December 2009 and January 2010, data were prospectively collected on treatment decisions, meeting characteristics, quality of information, and teamworking for all cases discussed at a London-based MDT meeting. Variables measured using a validated assessment tool (MDT MODe) and correlational analyses were performed. RESULTS: Treatment decisions were reached in 254 of 298 (85%) cases. Cases toward the end of meetings were associated with lower rates of decision-making, information quality, and teamworking (r = -0.15 to -0.37). Increased number of cases per meeting and team members in attendance were associated with better information and teamworking (r = 0.29-0.43). More time per case was associated with improved teamworking (r = 0.16). A positive correlation was obtained between ability to reach decisions and improved information and teamworking (r = 0.36-0.54; all P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Organizational factors related to the structure of the MDT meeting are associated with variation in the likelihood of reaching a treatment decision. Further research is required to establish causation and to modify such factors in order to improve the quality of cancer care.

In the nuclear industry, throughout the lifecycle of a nuclear plant or facility, operations vary in the degree of their tractability. Commissioned facilities should be relatively predictable in their operations, whereas decommissioning operations by their nature tend to be less predictable because they are a transition from one state to another, where safety systems, structures, components, and people serving safety may all change. Of course, different operations or states will have different characteristics and varying safety requirements. In this paper, we argue that by accounting for operations according to their relative tractability for their given phase in the lifecycle of a facility, a more targeted approach to managing safety is possible--one that recognises that the less tractable operation relies on human adaptation and resilience to a greater degree than the more tractable operation. From the outset, the safety of a decommissioning operation may therefore require a thorough account of the human and organisational factors that will support or impair human adaptation and resilience. High Reliability Organisation theory may provide a useful framework to consider how to engineer resilience in decommissioning and other operations of a less tractable nature.

Objective: The study had two specific objectives: (1) To analyse change in a survey measure of organisational patient safety climate and capability (SCC) resulting from participation in the UK Safer Patients Initiative and (2) To investigate the role of a range of programme and contextual factors in predicting change in SCC scores. Design: Single group longitudinal design with repeated measurement at 12-month follow-up. Setting: Multiple service areas within NHS hospital sites across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Participants: Stratified sample of 284 respondents representing programme teams at 19 hospital sites. Intervention: A complex intervention comprising a multi-component quality improvement collaborative focused upon patient safety and designed to impact upon hospital leadership, communication, organisation and safety climate. Measures: A survey including a 31-item SCC scale was administered at two time-points. Results: Modest but significant positive movement in SCC score was observed between the study time-points. Individual programme responsibility, availability of early adopters, multi-professional collaboration and extent of process measurement were significant predictors of change in SCC. Hospital type and size, along with a range of programme preconditions, were not found to be significant. Conclusion: A range of social, cultural and organisational factors may be sensitive to this type of intervention but the measurable effect is small. Supporting critical local programme implementation factors may be an effective strategy in achieving development in organisational patient SCC, regardless of contextual factors and organisational preconditions.

Aims To investigate perceived factors relating to the reliable application of four clinical care practices targeting ventilator-associated pneumonias, in the context of a patient safety improvement initiative called the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI). Methods Qualitative case study. Seventeen semi-structured individual interviews with clinical operational leads, programme coordinators and executive managers who were involved in the implementation of the programme's critical care work stream during its pilot phase. The interviews had a focus on perceived aspects pertaining to the reliable implementation of the four clinical practices, promoted by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement as the ‘ventilator care bundle’. Results Thematic analysis of the verbatim transcripts revealed three overarching themes experienced by the participants during the implementation of the clinical practices included in the SPI ventilator care bundle: the power of measurement, feedback to peers and experts and improvement tools specific to SPI. Consistent measurement of compliance with the four elements of the bundle and outcomes made the staff realize that their engagement in previous improvement work for ventilated patients was inadequate and motivated them to apply the introduced clinical practices more reliably. Feedback to experts and peers of staff compliance with the four clinical practices and outcome improvement was perceived as a very influential aspect of SPI. Small tests of change (Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles), teaching sessions and daily goal sheets were quoted as particularly useful tools throughout the implementation of the four clinical care practices. Conclusions Future initiatives that aim to improve the adherence of clinical staff with clinical practice guidelines in intensive care units could benefit from integrating in their methodology consistent measurement and feedback practices of both process compliance and outcome data.

Rationale, aims and objectives Arguably, a shared perspective between managers and their clinical staff on an improvement initiative would allow for most effective implementation and increase programme success. However, it has been reported that research has failed to differentiate between managers and line employees on quality management implementation and examine their differences in perceptions of quality and safety initiatives. The aim of this study was to compare clinical frontline staff and senior managers' perceptions on the importance of an organization-wide quality and safety collaborative: the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI). Method A quantitative study obtained 635 surveys at 20 trusts participating in SPI. Participants included the teams and frontline staff involved within the programme at each organization. Independent T-tests were carried out between frontline staff and senior managers' perceptions of SPI programme elements, success factors and impact & sustainability. Results Statistically significant differences were found between the perceptions of frontline staff and senior managers on a wide number of issues, including the frontline perceiving a significantly larger improvement on the timeliness of care delivery (t = 2.943, P = 0.004), while managers perceived larger improvement on the culture within the organization for safe, effective and reliable care (t = −2.454, P = 0.014). Conclusion This study has identified statistically significant disparities in perceptions of an organization-wide improvement initiative between frontline staff and senior managers. This holds valuable implications for the importance of getting both frontline and management perspectives when designing such interventions, in monitoring their performance, and in evaluating their impact.

Background Patient safety has been high on the agenda for more than a decade. Despite many national initiatives aimed at improving patient safety, the challenge remains to find coherent and sustainable organisation-wide safety-improvement programmes. In the UK, the Safer Patients9 Initiative (SPI) was established to address this challenge. Important in the success of such an endeavour is understanding ‘readiness’ at the organisational level, identifying the preconditions for success in this type of programme. This article reports on a case study of the four NHS organisations participating in the first phase of SPI, examining the perceptions of organisational readiness and the relationship of these factors with impact by those actively involved in the initiative. Materials and methods A mixed-methods design was used, involving a survey and semistructured interviews with senior executive leads, the principal SPI programme coordinator and the four operational leads in each of the SPI clinical work areas in all four organisations taking part in the first phase of SPI. Conclusions This preliminary work would suggest that prior to the start of organisation-wide quality- and safety-improvement programmes, organisations would benefit from an assessment of readiness with time spent in the preparation of the organisational infrastructure, processes and culture. Furthermore, a better understanding of the preconditions that mark an organisation as ready for improvement work would allow policymakers to set realistic expectations about the outcomes of safety campaigns.

Introduction: Effective feedback from incident reporting systems in healthcare is essential if organisations are to learn from failures in the delivery of care. Despite the wide-scale development and implementation of incident reporting in healthcare, studies in the UK suggest that information concerning system vulnerabilities could be better applied to improve operational safety within organisations. In this article, the findings and implications of research to identify forms of effective feedback from incident reporting are discussed, to promote best practices in this area. Methods: The research comprised a mixed methods review to investigate mechanisms of effective feedback for healthcare, drawing upon experience within established reporting programmes in high-risk industry and transport domains. Systematic searches of published literature were undertaken, and 23 case studies describing incident reporting programmes with feedback were identified for analysis from the international healthcare literature. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 19 subject matter experts across a range of domains, including: civil aviation, maritime, energy, rail, offshore production and healthcare. Results: In analysis, qualitative information from several sources was synthesised into practical requirements for developing effective feedback in healthcare. Both action and information feedback mechanisms were identified, serving safety awareness, improvement and motivational functions. The provision of actionable feedback that visibly improved systems was highlighted as important in promoting future reporting. Fifteen requirements for the design of effective feedback systems were identified, concerning: the role of leadership, the credibility and content of information, effective dissemination channels, the capacity for rapid action and the need for feedback at all levels of the organisation, among others. Above all, the safety-feedback cycle must be closed by ensuring that reporting, analysis and investigation result in timely corrective actions that effectively address vulnerabilities in existing work systems. Conclusions: Limited research evidence exists concerning the issue of effective forms of safety feedback within healthcare. Much valuable operational knowledge resides in safety management communities within high-risk industries. Multiple means of feeding back recommended actions and safety information may be usefully employed to promote safety awareness, improve clinical processes and promote future reporting. Further work is needed to establish best practices for feedback systems in healthcare that effectively close the safety loop.

Technology has revolutionised surgery in minimising anatomical invasiveness and increasing the range of surgical interventions available. However, modern remote and robot assisted surgery places unorthodox demands on surgeons and on all those involved in surgical operations in the operating theatre/room. This system of work is of vital importance to surgical success. However, research for developing surgical technique focuses mainly on the surgeon’s interface with the operative site, neglecting the operating room system supporting that technique. Furthermore, there is yet no agreement on the framework for regularly organising this vital system and for optimising its design for interprofessional work. By expanding on the conventional human–machine interface, we develop a model depicting the surgeon controlling surgical action through the media and technology of the operating room system. We show how the operating room team mediate the control of the surgical operation. By viewing control and communication in the operating room as a property of a distributed or joint cognitive system, we emphasise the potential for the team, their media and technology to either impair or enhance surgical performance.

Objectives Research suggests that better feedback from quality and safety indicators leads to enhanced capability of clinicians and departments to improve care and change behaviour. The aim of the current study was to investigate the characteristics of feedback perceived by clinicians to be of most value. Methods Data were collected using a survey designed as part of a wider evaluation of a data feedback initiative in anaesthesia. Eighty-nine consultant anaesthetists from two English NHS acute Trusts completed the survey. Multiple linear regression with hierarchical variable entry was used to investigate which characteristics of feedback predict its perceived usefulness for monitoring variation and improving care. Results The final model demonstrated that the relevance of the quality indicators to the specific service area (β = 0.64, p = 0.01) and the credibility of the data as coming from a trustworthy, unbiased source (β = 0.55, p = 0.01) were the significant predictors, having controlled for all other covariates. Conclusion For clinicians to engage with effective quality monitoring and feedback, the perceived local relevance of indicators and trust in the credibility of the resulting data are paramount.

The aim of the study was to conduct a qualitative exploration of the sociotechnical processes underlying retained surgical swabs, and to explore the fundamental reasons why the swab count procedure and related protocols fail in practice. Data was collected through a set of 27 semistructured qualitative interviews with scrub nurses from a large, multi-site teaching hospital. Interview transcripts were analysed using established constant comparative methods, moving between inductive and deductive reasoning. Key findings were associated with interprofessional perspectives, team processes and climate and responsibility for the swab count. The analysis of risk factors revealed that perceived social and interprofessional issues played a significant role in the reliability of measures to prevent retained swabs. This work highlights the human, psychological and organisational factors that impact upon the reliability of the process and gives rise to recommendations to address contextual factors and improve perioperative practice and training.