Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals: mixed method evaluation

Abstract

Objectives To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation's Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals. Design Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change. Results Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deteriorationmonitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items)-there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for "difference in difference" 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in...

Safety lessons: shifting paradigms and new directions for patient safety research

“…22 There was an emphasis on central, top-down solutions for particular interventions or whole organisation safety programmes. To date, however, the evidence of impact from controlled evaluations of large-scale safety interventions 23 has shown little or none of the transformative effect predicted by clinical champions at the outset. Insights from ethnographic research help to explain why -as a review of observational research in acute settings concludes, 'patient safety is not simply a technical issue, but a site of organizational and professional politics'.…”

Segurança Do Paciente Idoso Hospitalizado: Uma Revisão Integrativa

“…Nos últimos anos foram desenvolvidos em todo o mundo muitos outros programas de melhoria da qualidade no cuidado, com vistas à segurança do paciente (32) . Entretanto, têm dado pouca atenção aos pacientes idosos.…”

A Road Map For Improving The Performance Of Performance Measures

“…1,2 A more optimistic picture emerged in a study of twenty-three hospitals, 11,12 but it is doubtful that this can be attributed to outcome monitoring. Quality measurement may result in some gaming, focusing attention on improving numbers rather than on improving quality.…”