Evaluating the implementation of a quality improvement process in General Practice using a realist evaluation framework

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Rationale, aims, and objectives: Underuse of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation is known to increase the risk of stroke and is an international problem. The National Institute for Health Care and Excellence guidance CG180 seeks to reduce atrial fibrillation related strokes through prescriptions of Non-vitamin K antagonist Oral Anticoagulants. A quality improvement programme was established by the West of England Academic Health Science Network (West of England AHSN) to implement this guidance into General Practice. A realist evaluation identified whether the quality improvement programme worked, determining how and in what circumstances. Methods: Six General Practices in 1 region, became the case study sites. Quality improvement team, doctor, and pharmacist meetings within each of the General Practices were recorded at 3 stages: initial planning, review, and final. Additionally, 15 interviews conducted with the practice leads explored experiences of the quality improvement process. Observation and interview data were analysed and compared against the initial programme theory. Results: The quality improvement resources available were used variably, with the training being valued by all. The initial programme theories were refined. In particular, local workload pressures and individual General Practitioner experiences and pre-conceived ideas were acknowledged. Where key motivators were in place, such as prior experience, the programme achieved optimal outcomes and secured a lasting quality improvement legacy. Conclusion: The employment of a quality improvement programme can deliver practice change and improvement legacy outcomes when particular mechanisms are employed and in contexts where there is a commitment to improve service

A deviation from standard design? Clinical trials, research ethics committees, and the regulatory co-construction of organizational deviance

Focusing on the high-profile drug disaster at London’s Northwick Park Hospital in 2006, this article explores how such an event can be seen as an example of organizational deviance co-constructed between the company running the research and the research ethics committee which approved the trial. This deviance was the result of the normalization of a specific dosing practice in the broader regulatory field, allowing the researchers and regulators to take a risky dosing strategy for granted as best practice. Drawing on the work of Diane Vaughan, this article uses interview data with researchers and members of the research ethics committee concerned as well as documentary material, to show how work group cultures between regulators and those they are intended to oversee are maintained, and how the culturally embedded assumptions of such work groups can result in organizational and regulatory deviance