Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

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

By Amirta Benning, Maisoon Ghaleb, Anu Kristiina Suokas, Mary Dixon-Woods, Jeremy Dawson, Nick Barber, Bryony Dean Franklin, Alan Girling, Karla Hemming, Martin Carmalt, Gavin Rudge, Thirumalai Naicker, Ugochi Nwulu, Sopna Choudhury and Richard J. Lilford


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. \ud Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. \ud Setting: NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom. \ud Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. \ud Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multi-component) 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. \ud 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 deterioration—monitoring 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 patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from 17% (63) to 13% (49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals. \ud Conclusions: The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Year: 2011
DOI identifier: 10.1136/bmj.c6646
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. A campaign for 100,000 lives.
  2. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. doi
  3. An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 1. Conceptualising and developing interventions.Qual Saf Health Care doi
  4. An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design.Qual Saf Health Care doi
  5. (2008). An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all.Qual Saf Health Care doi
  6. (2008). An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study designand interpretation. Part 3. Endpoints andmeasurement.Qual Saf Health Care doi
  7. An ethnographic study of classifying and accounting for risk at the sharp end of medical wards. doi
  8. Antecedents to hospital deaths. doi
  9. (2007). Basics of quality improvement in health care.Mayo Clin Proc doi
  10. (2006). better? Evaluating electronic prescribing. Report to the Patient Safety Research Programme. (Policy Research Programme of the Department of Health).
  11. Case record review of adverse events: a new approach. Qual Saf Health Care doi
  12. Confidential inquiry into quality of carebefore admission to intensive care. doi
  13. Effects of a quality improvement collaborative on the outcome of care of patients with HIV infection: the EQHIV study. doi
  14. Evaluating policy and service interventions: framework to guide selection and interpretation of study end points. doi
  15. Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance patient safety. doi
  16. Five years after to err is human: what have we learned? doi
  17. (2004). for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults, doi
  18. for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults. doi
  19. (2000). Health Expert Group. An organisation with a memory. Stationery Office,
  20. (2005). Healthcare Improvement. 17th Annual National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care. doi
  21. Hospital-wide physiological surveillance-a new approach to the early identification and management of the sick patient. doi
  22. How will it work? A qualitative study of strategic stakeholders’ accounts of a patient safety initiative. Qual Saf Health Care doi
  23. (1990). Human error. doi
  24. Improving the management of chronic disease at community health centers. doi
  25. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Resultsof theHarvardmedical practice study I.NEngl JMed
  26. Integrating safety and quality: building to achieve excellence in the workplace. doi
  27. Interrater reliability of case-note audit: a systematic review.
  28. Learning from patient safety incidents: creating participative risk regulation in healthcare. Health Risk Soc doi
  29. Making sense of your staff survey data.
  30. Managing people and performance: an evidencebased framework applied to health service organisations. doi
  31. Methods to reduce the impact of intraclass correlation in group-randomized trials. doi
  32. (2010). Mixed-method evaluation of a large-scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals. doi
  33. Multiple component patient safety intervention in English hospitals: controlled evaluation of second phase. doi
  34. Operating at the sharp end: the complexity of human error.
  35. (2000). Out of the crisis.
  36. (1998). Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess
  37. Reducing patient mortality in hospitals: the role of human resource management. doi
  38. (2001). Regulation and risk: occupational health and safety on the railways. doi
  39. (2009). Studying large-scale programmes to improve patient safety in whole care systems: challenges for research. Soc Sci Med. doi
  40. Team working and effectiveness in health. doi
  41. The 100 000 lives campaign: setting a goal and a deadline for improving health care quality. doi
  42. The development of a computerised quality assurance system for clinical pharmacy. doi
  43. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. doi
  44. (1985). The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol doi
  45. (2006). The hard count: calculating lives saved in the 100,000 lives campaign.
  46. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. doi
  47. The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration. Qual Saf Health Care doi
  48. Thenatureof adverse events inhospitalizedpatients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. doi
  49. (2000). To err is human: building a safer health system. doi
  50. Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.