ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to describe the involvement of patients or their representatives in quality management (QM) functions and to assess associations between levels of involvement and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies.DesignA cross-sectional, multilevel study design that surveyed quality managers and department heads and data from an organizational audit.SettingRandomly selected hospitals (n = 74) from seven European countries (The Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Turkey).ParticipantsHospital quality managers (n = 74) and heads of clinical departments (n = 262) in charge of four patient pathways (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hip fracture and deliveries) participated in the data collection between May 2011 and February 2012.Main Outcome MeasuresFour items reflecting essential patient-centred care strategies based on an on-site hospital visit: (1) formal survey seeking views of patients and carers, (2) written policies on patients' rights, (3) patient information literature including guidelines and (4) fact sheets for post-discharge care. The main predictors were patient involvement in QM at the (i) hospital level and (ii) pathway level.ResultsCurrent levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions in European hospitals are low at hospital level (mean score 1.6 on a scale of 0 to 5, SD 0.7), but even lower at departmental level (mean 0.6, SD 0.7). We did not detect associations between levels of involving patients and their representatives in QM functions and the implementation of patient-centred care strategies; however, the smallest hospitals were more likely to have implemented patient-centred care strategies.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence that involving patients and their representatives in QM leads to establishing or implementing strategies and procedures that facilitate patient-centred care; however, lack of evidence should not be interpreted as evidence of no effect.

BackgroundThere is a need to reduce the variation in organisational performance across the NHS for which boards hold ultimate responsibility. By exploring how boards can add value, we hope that this research will benefit patients and improve service efficiency and effectiveness.ObjectivesWe know that there are knowledge gaps in relation to the composition and characteristics of effective boards in the NHS, their impact and the range of tools and techniques available for developing effective boards. This realist synthesis study, therefore, aims to add to existing knowledge by (1) providing a theoretical contribution to board governance and relating it to the NHS context, (2) offering fresh insights into effective board composition, structures, processes and behaviours in the NHS, (3) furthering an understanding of how NHS boards can affect organisational performance and (4) summarising and analysing the range of board assessment tools and development interventions available for the NHS.MethodThe study adopted a realist approach to an evidence synthesis of a diffuse literature. In line with realist review principles, we tested, honed and refined the research questions and emerging findings with a joint expert advisory and stakeholder group of 23 people. A search was conducted across relevant library and external sources including ABI/INFORM® (ProQuest, Ann Arbor, MI, USA), SciVerse® ScienceDirect® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Social Science Research Network, from 1968 to 2011. A total of 618 general articles, 209 health-care-related articles, 252 textbooks and 54 reports were identified.ResultsFrameworks that have developed from theory and from practice were categorised into the three elements of composition (board structure), focus (what the board does) and dynamics (the behavioural dimension), and the potential conjunction between board theories and practices was explored. We found some important distinguishing characteristics in the public, non-profit and health-care sectors. In relation to the impact of boards on organisational performance, the importance of contingency factors was highlighted and there is positive empirical support for the role of physicians on the board. Other than self-reports, we could not find any significant studies on the impact of board development on board effectiveness.LimitationsThe study is dependent on the diverse nature of the sources of evidence and the relative infancy of the realist synthesis method. The literature is fragmented, equivocal and, at times, contradictory. We believe, nevertheless, that the study offers insights in terms of developing middle-range theories for effective health-care boards.ConclusionsWe found no simple theory about how boards should operate. The use of certain models for boards may be more appropriate than others, depending on what the priority is in terms of organisation outcome. We have identified some important distinguishing characteristics in the public and non-profit sectors. On the whole, evidence lends some further support for a theory about the dynamics of an effective board in relation to high challenge, high trust and high engagement, modified in the light of our developing understanding about the linkages between different contexts and desired outcomes. We identified five areas in which board development approaches should be more focused. We suggest three main areas for further research: the composition of NHS boards, the conditions under which health-care boards are able to exert a sustained focus on clinical quality and an evaluation of the impact of board development activities on organisational performance.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A range of conceptual models for understanding the policy process have been applied to the health policy process, largely in particular sub areas or policy domains such as public health. However, these contributions appear to offer different rationales and present different frameworks for understanding the policy process. This Editorial critically examines articles that explore the health policy process with models from wider public policy and from health policy. It can be seen that very few of the ‘wider models have been applied in studies of the health policy process. Conversely, some models feature in studies of the health policy process, but not in the wider policy process literature, which suggests that literature on the health policy process is semi-detached from the wider policy process literature. There seem to be two very different future research directions: focusing on ‘home grown’ models, or taking greater account of the wider policy process literature. Does ‘one size fit all’ or is it ‘horses for courses’?

Two specially trained radiographers at York District Hospital have been reporting appendicular plain radiograph X-ray examinations for Accident and Emergency (A&E) patients since February 1995. This study explores the potential for further expanding their reporting role. This was achieved by assessing the two radiographers' and a group of consultant radiologists' ability to report on a retrospectively selected random stratified sample of 400 A&E and General Practitioner (GP) plain radiograph X-ray examinations for all body areas. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses there was no statistically significant difference at the 5% level between the area under the ROC curves for the radiographers and consultant radiologists when reporting A&E or GP plain radiographs. It may be feasible to expand the reporting role of suitably trained radiographers to include plain radiograph X-ray examinations for all A&E patients and for GP patients, with no detriment to the quality of reports.

IntroductionUnprofessional behaviours encompass many behaviours including bullying, harassment and microaggressions. These behaviours between healthcare staff are problematic; they affect people’s ability to work, to feel psychologically safe at work and speak up and to deliver safe care to patients. Almost a fifth of UK National Health Service staff experience unprofessional behaviours in the workplace, with higher incidence in acute care settings and for staff from minority backgrounds. Existing analyses have investigated the effectiveness of strategies to reduce these behaviours. We seek to go beyond these, to understand the range and causes of such behaviours, their negative effects and how mitigation strategies may work, in which contexts and for whom.Methods and analysisThis study uses a realist review methodology with stakeholder input comprising a number of iterative steps: (1) formulating initial programme theories drawing on informal literature searches and literature already known to the study team, (2) performing systematic and purposive searches for grey and peer-reviewed literature on Embase, CINAHL and MEDLINE databases as well as Google and Google Scholar, (3) selecting appropriate documents while considering rigour and relevance, (4) extracting data, (5) and synthesising and (6) refining the programme theories by testing the theories against the newly identified literature.Ethics and disseminationEthical review is not required as this study is a secondary research. An impact strategy has been developed which includes working closely with key stakeholders throughout the project. Step 7 of our project will develop pragmatic resources for managers and professionals, tailoring contextually-sensitive strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours, identifying what works for which groups. We will be guided by the ‘Evidence Integration Triangle’ to implement the best strategies to reduce unprofessional behaviours in given contexts. Dissemination will occur through presentation at conferences, innovative methods (cartoons, videos, animations and/or interactive performances) and peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021255490.