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.

BackgroundImprovement initiatives offer a valuable mechanism for delivering and testing innovations in healthcare settings. Many of these initiatives deliver meaningful and necessary changes to patient care and outcomes. However, many improvement initiatives fail to sustain to a point where their full benefits can be realised. This has led many researchers and healthcare practitioners to develop frameworks, models and tools to support and monitor sustainability. This work aimed to identify what approaches are available to assess and influence sustainability in healthcare and to describe the different perspectives, applications and constructs within these approaches to guide their future use.MethodsA systematic review was carried out following PRISMA guidelines to identify publications that reported approaches to support or influence sustainability in healthcare. Eligibility criteria were defined through an iterative process in which two reviewers independently assessed 20% of articles to test the objectivity of the selection criteria. Data were extracted from the identified articles, and a template analysis was undertaken to identify and assess the sustainability constructs within each reported approach.ResultsThe search strategy identified 1748 publications with 227 articles retrieved in full text for full documentary analysis. In total, 62 publications identifying a sustainability approach were included in this review (32 frameworks, 16 models, 8 tools, 4 strategies, 1 checklist and 1 process). Constructs across approaches were compared and 40 individual constructs for sustainability were found. Comparison across approaches demonstrated consistent constructs were seen regardless of proposed interventions, setting or level of application with 6 constructs included in 75% of the approaches. Although similarities were found, no approaches contained the same combination of the constructs nor did any single approach capture all identified constructs. From these results, a consolidated framework for sustainability constructs in healthcare was developed.ConclusionsChoosing a sustainability method can pose a challenge because of the diverse approaches reported in the literature. This review provides a valuable resource to researchers, healthcare professionals and improvement practitioners by providing a summary of available sustainability approaches and their characteristics.Trial registrationThis review was registered on the PROSPERO database: CRD42016040081 in June 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0707-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Process mapping provides insight into systems and processes in which improvement interventions are introduced and is seen as useful in healthcare quality improvement projects. There is little empirical evidence on the use of process mapping in healthcare practice. This study advances understanding of the benefits and success factors of process mapping within quality improvement projects. Methods Eight quality improvement projects were purposively selected from different healthcare settings within the UK's National Health Service. Data were gathered from multiple data-sources, including interviews exploring participants' experience of using process mapping in their projects and perceptions of benefits and challenges related to its use. These were analysed using inductive analysis. Results Eight key benefits related to process mapping use were reported by participants (gathering a shared understanding of the reality; identifying improvement opportunities; engaging stakeholders in the project; defining project's objectives; monitoring project progress; learning; increased empathy; simplicity of the method) and five factors related to successful process mapping exercises (simple and appropriate visual representation, information gathered from multiple stakeholders, facilitator's experience and soft skills, basic training, iterative use of process mapping throughout the project). Conclusions Findings highlight benefits and versatility of process mapping and provide practical suggestions to improve its use in practice.

Introduction Process mapping (PM) supports better understanding of complex systems and adaptation of improvement interventions to their local context. However, there is little research on its use in healthcare. This study (i) proposes a conceptual framework outlining quality criteria to guide the effective implementation, evaluation and reporting of PM in healthcare; (ii) reviews published PM cases to identify context and quality of PM application, and the reported benefits of using PM in healthcare. Methods We developed the conceptual framework by reviewing methodological guidance on PM and empirical literature on its use in healthcare improvement interventions. We conducted a systematic review of empirical literature using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Inclusion criteria were: full text empirical study; describing the process through which PM has been applied in a healthcare setting; published in English. Databases searched are: Medline, Embase, HMIC–Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL-Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus. Two independent reviewers extracted and analysed data. Each manuscript underwent line by line coding. The conceptual framework was used to evaluate adherence of empirical studies to the identified PM quality criteria. Context in which PM is used and benefits of using PM were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results The framework outlines quality criteria for each PM phase: (i) preparation, planning and process identification, (ii) data and information gathering, (iii) process map generation, (iv) analysis, (v) taking it forward. PM is used in a variety of settings and approaches to improvement. None of the reviewed studies (N = 105) met all ten quality criteria; 7% were compliant with 8/10 or 9/10 criteria. 45% of studies reported that PM was generated through multi-professional meetings and 15% reported patient involvement. Studies highlighted the value of PM in navigating the complexity characterising healthcare improvement interventions. Conclusion The full potential of PM is inhibited by variance in reporting and poor adherence to underpinning principles. Greater rigour in the application of the method is required. We encourage the use and further development of the proposed framework to support training, application and reporting of PM. Trial Registration Prospero ID: CRD42017082140

BackgroundCare bundles have been shown to improve outcomes, reduce hospital readmissions and reduce length of hospital stay; therefore increasing the speed of uptake and delivery of care bundles should be a priority in order to deliver more timely improvements and consistent high-quality care. Previous studies have detailed the difficulties of obtaining full compliance to bundle elements but few have described the underlying reasons for this. In order to improve future implementation this paper investigates the challenges encountered by clinical teams implementing a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) care bundle and describes actions taken to overcome these challenges.MethodsAn initial retrospective documentary analysis of data from seven clinical implementation teams was undertaken to review the challenges faced by the clinical teams. Three focus groups with healthcare professionals and managers explored solutions to these challenges developed during the project.ResultsDocumentary analysis identified 28 challenges which directly impacted implementation of the COPD care bundle within five themes; staffing, infrastructure, process, use of improvement methodology and patient and public involvement. Focus groups revealed that the five most significant challenges for all groups were: staff too busy, staff shortages, lack of staff engagement, added workload of the bundle and patient coding issues. The participants shared facilitating factors used to overcome issues including: shifting perceptions to improve engagement, further education sessions to increase staff participation and gaining buy-in from managers through payment frameworks.ConclusionsMaximising the impact of a care bundle relies on its successful and timely implementation. Teams implementing the COPD care bundle encountered challenges that were common to all teams and sites. Understanding and learning from the challenges faced by previous endeavours and identifying the facilitators to overcoming these barriers provides an opportunity to mitigate issues that waste time and resources, and ensures that training can be tailored to the anticipated challenges.

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.

Background Numerous models, tools and frameworks have been produced to improve the sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Due to the vast number available, choosing the most appropriate one is increasingly difficult for researchers and practitioners. To understand the value of such approaches, evidence warranting their use is needed. However, there is limited understanding of how sustainability approaches have been used and how they have impacted research or practice. This review aims to consolidate evidence on the application and impact of sustainability approaches in healthcare settings. Methods A systematic scoping review was designed to search for peer-reviewed publications detailing the use of sustainability approaches in practice. A 5-stage framework for scoping reviews directed the search strategy, and quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Searches were performed through electronic citation tracking and snowballing of references. Articles were obtained through Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Six outcome variables for sustainability were explored to ascertain impact of approaches. Results This review includes 68 articles demonstrating the application of sustainability approaches in practice. Results show an increase in the use of sustainability approaches in peer-reviewed studies. Approaches have been applied across a range of healthcare settings, including primary, secondary, tertiary and community healthcare. Approaches are used for five main purposes, namely analysis, evaluation, guidance, assessment and planning. Results outline benefits (e.g. improved conceptualisation of sustainability constructs and improved ability to interpret sustainability data) and challenges (e.g. issues with approach constructs and difficulty in application) associated with using a sustainability approach in practice. Few articles (14/68) reported the sustainability outcome variables explored; therefore, the impact of approaches on sustainability remains unclear. Additional sustainability outcome variables reported in retrieved articles are discussed. Conclusions This review provides practitioners and researchers with a consolidated evidence base on sustainability approaches. Findings highlight the remaining gaps in the literature and emphasise the need for improved rigour and reporting of sustainability approaches in research studies. To guide future assessment and study of sustainability in healthcare settings an updated list of sustainability outcome variables is proposed. Trial Registration This review was registered on the PROSPERO database CRD 42016040081 in June 2016.

BackgroundAlthough widely recommended as an effective approach to quality improvement (QI), the Plan–Do–Study–Act (PDSA) cycle method can be challenging to use, and low fidelity of published accounts of the method has been reported. There is little evidence on the fidelity of PDSA cycles used by front-line teams, nor how to support and improve the method’s use. Data collected from 39 front-line improvement teams provided an opportunity to retrospectively investigate PDSA cycle use and how strategies were modified to help improve this over time.MethodsThe fidelity of 421 PDSA cycles was reviewed using a predefined framework and statistical analysis examined whether fidelity changed over three annual rounds of projects. The experiences of project teams and QI support staff were investigated through document analysis and interviews.ResultsAlthough modest, statistically significant improvements in PDSA fidelity occurred; however, overall fidelity remained low. Challenges to achieving greater fidelity reflected problems with understanding the PDSA methodology, intention to use and application in practice. These problems were exacerbated by assumptions made in the original QI training and support strategies: that PDSA was easy to understand; that teams would be motivated and willing to use PDSA; and that PDSA is easy to apply. QI strategies that evolved to overcome these challenges included project selection process, redesign of training, increased hands-on support and investment in training QI support staff.ConclusionThis study identifies support strategies that may help improve PDSA cycle fidelity. It provides an approach to assess minimum standards of fidelity which can be replicated elsewhere. The findings suggest achieving high PDSA fidelity requires a gradual and negotiated process to explore different perspectives and encourage new ways of working.