ObjectiveTo explore evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness outcomes.DesignSystematic review.SettingA wide range of settings within primary and secondary care including hospitals and primary care centres.ParticipantsA wide range of demographic groups and age groups.Primary and secondary outcome measuresA broad range of patient safety and clinical effectiveness outcomes including mortality, physical symptoms, length of stay and adherence to treatment.ResultsThis study, summarising evidence from 55 studies, indicates consistent positive associations between patient experience, patient safety and clinical effectiveness for a wide range of disease areas, settings, outcome measures and study designs. It demonstrates positive associations between patient experience and self-rated and objectively measured health outcomes; adherence to recommended clinical practice and medication; preventive care (such as health-promoting behaviour, use of screening services and immunisation); and resource use (such as hospitalisation, length of stay and primary-care visits). There is some evidence of positive associations between patient experience and measures of the technical quality of care and adverse events. Overall, it was more common to find positive associations between patient experience and patient safety and clinical effectiveness than no associations.ConclusionsThe data presented display that patient experience is positively associated with clinical effectiveness and patient safety, and support the case for the inclusion of patient experience as one of the central pillars of quality in healthcare. It supports the argument that the three dimensions of quality should be looked at as a group and not in isolation. Clinicians should resist sidelining patient experience as too subjective or mood-oriented, divorced from the ‘real’ clinical work of measuring safety and effectiveness.

The implementation of evidence-based treatments to deliver high-quality care is essential to meet the healthcare demands of aging populations. However, the sustainable application of recommended practice is difficult to achieve and variable outcomes well recognised. The NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Sustainability Model (SM) was designed to help healthcare teams recognise determinants of sustainability and take action to embed new practice in routine care. This article describes a formative evaluation of the application of the SM by the National Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL).Data from project teams’ responses to the SM and formal reviews was used to assess acceptability of the SM and the extent to which it prompted teams to take action. Projects were classified as ‘engaged,’ ‘partially engaged’ and ‘non-engaged.’ Quarterly survey feedback data was used to explore reasons for variation in engagement. Score patterns were compared against formal review data and a ‘diversity of opinion’ measure was derived to assess response variance over time.Of the 19 teams, six were categorized as ‘engaged,’ six ‘partially engaged,’ and seven as ‘non-engaged.’ Twelve teams found the model acceptable to some extent. Diversity of opinion reduced over time. A minority of teams used the SM consistently to take action to promote sustainability but for the majority SM use was sporadic. Feedback from some team members indicates difficulty in understanding and applying the model and negative views regarding its usefulness.The SM is an important attempt to enable teams to systematically consider determinants of sustainability, provide timely data to assess progress, and prompt action to create conditions for sustained practice. Tools such as these need to be tested in healthcare settings to assess strengths and weaknesses and findings disseminated to aid development. This study indicates the SM provides a potentially useful approach to measuring teams’ views on the likelihood of sustainability and prompting action. Securing engagement of teams with the SM was challenging and redesign of elements may need to be considered. Capacity building and facilitation appears necessary for teams to effectively deploy the SM.

BackgroundEnsuring patients benefit from the latest medical and technical advances remains a major challenge, with rational-linear and reductionist approaches to translating evidence into practice proving inefficient and ineffective. Complexity thinking, which emphasises interconnectedness and unpredictability, offers insights to inform evidence translation theories and strategies. Drawing on detailed insights into complex micro-systems, this research aimed to advance empirical and theoretical understanding of the reality of making and sustaining improvements in complex healthcare systems.MethodsUsing analytical auto-ethnography, including documentary analysis and literature review, we assimilated learning from 5 years of observation of 22 evidence translation projects (UK). We used a grounded theory approach to develop substantive theory and a conceptual framework. Results were interpreted using complexity theory and ‘simple rules’ were identified reflecting the practical strategies that enhanced project progress.ResultsThe framework for Successful Healthcare Improvement From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence) positions the challenge of evidence translation within the dynamic context of the health system. SHIFT-Evidence is summarised by three strategic principles, namely (1) ‘act scientifically and pragmatically’ – knowledge of existing evidence needs to be combined with knowledge of the unique initial conditions of a system, and interventions need to adapt as the complex system responds and learning emerges about unpredictable effects; (2) ‘embrace complexity’ – evidence-based interventions only work if related practices and processes of care within the complex system are functional, and evidence-translation efforts need to identify and address any problems with usual care, recognising that this typically includes a range of interdependent parts of the system; and (3) ‘engage and empower’ – evidence translation and system navigation requires commitment and insights from staff and patients with experience of the local system, and changes need to align with their motivations and concerns. Twelve associated ‘simple rules’ are presented to provide actionable guidance to support evidence translation and improvement in complex systems.ConclusionBy recognising how agency, interconnectedness and unpredictability influences evidence translation in complex systems, SHIFT-Evidence provides a tool to guide practice and research. The ‘simple rules’ have potential to provide a common platform for academics, practitioners, patients and policymakers to collaborate when intervening to achieve improvements in healthcare.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1076-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Background and objectivesPatient and public involvement (PPI) is seen as a way of helping to shape health policy and ensure a patient‐focused health‐care system. While evidence indicates that PPI can improve health‐care decision making, it also consumes monetary and non‐monetary resources. Given the financial climate, it is important to start thinking about the costs and benefits of PPI and how to evaluate it in economic terms.DesignWe conducted a literature review to assess the potential benefits and costs of involvement and the challenges in carrying out an economic evaluation of PPI.ResultsThe benefits of PPI include effects on the design of new projects or services, on NHS governance, on research design and implementation and on citizenship and equity. Economic evaluation of PPI activities is limited. The lack of an appropriate analytical framework, data recording and understanding of the potential costs and benefits of PPI, especially from participants' perspectives, represent serious constraints on the full evaluation of PPI.ConclusionsBy recognizing the value of PPI, health‐care providers and commissioners can embed it more effectively within their organizations. Better knowledge of costs may prompt organizations to effectively plan, execute, evaluate and target resources. This should increase the likelihood of more meaningful activity, avoid tokenism and enhance organizational efficiency and reputation.

SHIFT-Evidence provides a practical tool to guide practice and research of evidence translation and improvement within complex dynamic healthcare settings. Implications are that improvement initiatives and research study designs need to take into account the unique initial conditions in each local setting; conduct needs to respond to unpredictable effects and address dependent problems; and evaluation needs to be sensitive to evolving priorities and the emergent range of activities required to achieve improvement.

ObjectivesAlthough improvement initiatives show benefits to patient care, they often fail to sustain. Models and frameworks exist to address this challenge, but issues with design, clarity and usability have been barriers to use in healthcare settings. This work aimed to collaborate with stakeholders to develop a sustainability tool relevant to people in healthcare settings and practical for use in improvement initiatives.DesignTool development was conducted in six stages. A scoping literature review, group discussions and a stakeholder engagement event explored literature findings and their resonance with stakeholders in healthcare settings. Interviews, small-scale trialling and piloting explored the design and tested the practicality of the tool in improvement initiatives.SettingNational Institute for Health Research Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for Northwest London (CLAHRC NWL).ParticipantsCLAHRC NWL improvement initiative teams and staff.ResultsThe iterative design process and engagement of stakeholders informed the articulation of the sustainability factors identified from the literature and guided tool design for practical application. Key iterations of factors and tool design are discussed. From the development process, the Long Term Success Tool (LTST) has been designed. The Tool supports those implementing improvements to reflect on 12 sustainability factors to identify risks to increase chances of achieving sustainability over time. The Tool is designed to provide a platform for improvement teams to share their own views on sustainability as well as learn about the different views held within their team to prompt discussion and actions.ConclusionThe development of the LTST has reinforced the importance of working with stakeholders to design strategies which respond to their needs and preferences and can practically be implemented in real-world settings. Further research is required to study the use and effectiveness of the tool in practice and assess engagement with the method over time.

ObjectivesTo demonstrate a statistical method to enable the identification of key drivers of quality from a patient perspective that can be used by service providers to help drive improvement.DesignCross-tabulation, Chi-square analysis and Cramer's V calculation using SPSS software of NHS Inpatient Surveys 2006 and 2007.SettingThe NHS Inpatient Survey is a standardized survey designed by the Picker Institute conducted on a sample of patients across all acute care hospital trusts in England.ParticipantsThe surveys (available from the UK Data Archive) provide anonymized patient data for over 77,000 patients in 2006 and 72,000 patients in 2007.Main outcome measuresCramer's V score testing associations between patient ratings on multiple components of care and ratings on the overall quality of care.ResultsOf the 58 questions analysed, some questions correlate more strongly with overall satisfaction of care than others and there is strong agreement of results over the two years. Of the top 20 rated components, communication (both between professionals and between professionals and patients) and trust engendered by that communication is a recurring theme.ConclusionsHospital trusts are required to develop quality indicators and collate detailed feedback from patients in addition to the annual inpatient survey to measure these. To make best use of resources, additional data collection should focus on those aspects of care of most importance to patients locally. This analysis demonstrates a statistical technique that can help to identify such priority areas by showing those aspects of care most strongly associated with the overall rating of care. The analysis uses national level data to demonstrate how this can be achieved. This shows the importance to patients of being treated with dignity and respect, and good communication between staff and between staff and patients.