Patient, carer and public involvement in major system change in acute stroke services: The construction of value

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement is required where changes to care provided by the UK National Health Service are proposed. Yet involvement is characterized by ambiguity about its rationales, methods and impact. AIMS: To understand how patients and carers were involved in major system changes (MSCs) to the delivery of acute stroke care in 2 English cities, and what kinds of effects involvement was thought to produce. METHODS: Analysis of documents from both MSC projects, and retrospective in-depth interviews with 45 purposively selected individuals (providers, commissioners, third-sector employees) involved in the MSC. RESULTS: Involvement was enacted through consultation exercises; lay membership of governance structures; and elicitation of patient perspectives. Interviewees' views of involvement in these MSCs varied, reflecting different views of involvement per se, and of implicit quality criteria. The value of involvement lay not in its contribution to acute service redesign but in its facilitation of the changes developed by professionals. We propose 3 conceptual categories-agitation management, verification and substantiation-to identify types of process through which involvement was seen to facilitate system change. DISCUSSION: Involvement was seen to have strategic and intrinsic value. Its strategic value lay in facilitating the implementation of a model of care that aimed to deliver evidence-based care to all; its intrinsic value was in the idea of citizen participation in change processes as an end in its own right. The concept of value, rather than impact, may provide greater traction in analyses of contemporary involvement practices

Learning from the emergence of NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs): A systematic review of evaluations

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were funded by NIHR in England in 2008 and 2014 as partnerships between universities and surrounding health service organisations, focused on improving the quality of healthcare through the conduct and application of applied health research. The aim of this review is to synthesise learning from evaluations of the CLAHRCs. Methods: Fifteen databases including CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched to identify any evaluations of CLAHRCs. Current and archived CLAHRC websites and the reference lists of retrieved articles were scanned to identify any additional evaluations. Searches were restricted to English language only. Any publications from evaluations of the CLAHRCs were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled at least one of three pre-specified inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results: Twenty-six evaluations (reported in 37 papers) were deemed eligible for inclusion. Evaluations focused on describing and exploring the formative partnerships, vision, values, structures and processes of CLAHRCs; the nature and role of boundaries; the deployment of knowledge brokers and hybrid roles to support knowledge mobilisation; patient and public involvement; and capacity building. The relative lack of data about the early impact of CLAHRCs on health care provision or outcomes is notable. Conclusions: Much of the evaluative focus on CLAHRCs has been on how they have been organised and on the development of theory around their emergent properties. Evidence is lacking on the impact of CLAHRCs particularly in relation to the knowledge mobilisation processes and practices adopted. Further evaluation of CLAHRCs and other similar research and practice partnerships is warranted and should focus on which knowledge mobilisation approaches work where, how and why

Lessons for major system change: centralization of stroke services in two metropolitan areas of England

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to identify the factors influencing the selection of a model of acute stroke service centralization to create fewer high-volume specialist units in two metropolitan areas of England (London and Greater Manchester). It considers the reasons why services were more fully centralized in London than in Greater Manchester. METHODS: In both areas, we analysed 316 documents and conducted 45 interviews with people leading transformation, service user organizations, providers and commissioners. Inductive and deductive analyses were used to compare the processes underpinning change in each area, with reference to propositions for achieving major system change taken from a realist review of the existing literature (the Best framework), which we critique and develop further. RESULTS: In London, system leadership was used to overcome resistance to centralization and align stakeholders to implement a centralized service model. In Greater Manchester, programme leaders relied on achieving change by consensus and, lacking decision-making authority over providers, accommodated rather than challenged resistance by implementing a less radical transformation of services. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of system (top-down) and distributed (bottom-up) leadership is important in enabling change. System leadership provides the political authority required to coordinate stakeholders and to capitalize on clinical leadership by aligning it with transformation goals. Policy makers should examine how the structures of system authority, with performance management and financial levers, can be employed to coordinate transformation by aligning the disparate interests of providers and commissioners

How do managerial techniques evolve over time? The distortion of “facilitation” in healthcare service improvement

When applied to solving real-world problems in the public sector, managerial techniques are likely to evolve over time in response to the context of their implementation. The temporal dynamics of this evolution and its underlying processes, however, remain under-researched. To address this gap, we present a qualitative longitudinal case study of a UK-based knowledge mobilization programme utilizing “facilitation” as a service improvement approach. We describe the processes underpinning the distortion of facilitation over time and argue that an uncritical and uncontrolled adaptation of managerial techniques may mask the unsustainable nature of the resulting improvement outcomes captured by conventional performance measurement

Current videofluoroscopy practice in the United Kingdom: A survey of imaging professionals

Introduction Videofluoroscopy (VFSS) is a frequently used radiological investigation for dysphagia and is conducted within a radiology setting by speech and language therapists (SLTs) working alongside imaging personnel (radiologists and/or radiographers). Previous surveys of SLT practice have reported variability in VFSS protocols and procedures. The aim of this study was to explore current clinical practice for VFSS from the perspective of imaging personnel engaged in VFSS within the United Kingdom. Methods A comprehensive online survey enabled exploration of current practices of imaging professionals. Target participants were diagnostic imaging personnel (radiographers and radiologists) with experience of working in VFSS clinics. Descriptive statistics describe and summarise the data alongside inferential statistics where appropriate. Results 54 survey participants represented 40 unique acute healthcare organisations in the UK, in addition to two respondents from the Republic of Ireland. The survey demonstrated high variance in clinical practice across all stages of the VFSS procedure. Clinicians were not always compliant with current UK guidelines and the roles and responsibilities of different professionals working within the clinics were often not clearly defined. Conclusion Further research is required to develop new international, interprofessional VFSS guidelines to standardise service delivery for VFSS, improving diagnostic accuracy, efficiency and patient experience. Implications for practice In the absence of VFSS guidelines for imaging personnel, practitioners should familiarise themselves with the UK Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists VFSS Position paper; IR (ME)R guidelines and DRLs for the client groups with which they work to guide clinics and improve practice. Clinicians should revisit protocols and clinical governance regarding safe practice in order to improve the quality of care within the VFSS clinic

Digital methods to enhance the usefulness of patient experience data in services for long-term conditions: the DEPEND mixed-methods study

Background Collecting NHS patient experience data is critical to ensure the delivery of high-quality services. Data are obtained from multiple sources, including service-specific surveys and widely used generic surveys. There are concerns about the timeliness of feedback, that some groups of patients and carers do not give feedback and that free-text feedback may be useful but is difficult to analyse. Objective To understand how to improve the collection and usefulness of patient experience data in services for people with long-term conditions using digital data capture and improved analysis of comments. Design The DEPEND study is a mixed-methods study with four parts: qualitative research to explore the perspectives of patients, carers and staff; use of computer science text-analytics methods to analyse comments; co-design of new tools to improve data collection and usefulness; and implementation and process evaluation to assess use of the tools and any impacts. Setting Services for people with severe mental illness and musculoskeletal conditions at four sites as exemplars to reflect both mental health and physical long-terms conditions: an acute trust (site A), a mental health trust (site B) and two general practices (sites C1 and C2). Participants A total of 100 staff members with diverse roles in patient experience management, clinical practice and information technology; 59 patients and 21 carers participated in the qualitative research components. Interventions The tools comprised a digital survey completed using a tablet device (kiosk) or a pen and paper/online version; guidance and information for patients, carers and staff; text-mining programs; reporting templates; and a process for eliciting and recording verbal feedback in community mental health services. Results We found a lack of understanding and experience of the process of giving feedback. People wanted more meaningful and informal feedback to suit local contexts. Text mining enabled systematic analysis, although challenges remained, and qualitative analysis provided additional insights. All sites managed to collect feedback digitally; however, there was a perceived need for additional resources, and engagement varied. Observation indicated that patients were apprehensive about using kiosks but often would participate with support. The process for collecting and recording verbal feedback in mental health services made sense to participants, but was not successfully adopted, with staff workload and technical problems often highlighted as barriers. Staff thought that new methods were insightful, but observation did not reveal changes in services during the testing period. Conclusions The use of digital methods can produce some improvements in the collection and usefulness of feedback. Context and flexibility are important, and digital methods need to be complemented with alternative methods. Text mining can provide useful analysis for reporting on large data sets within large organisations, but qualitative analysis may be more useful for small data sets and in small organisations. Limitations New practices need time and support to be adopted and this study had limited resources and a limited testing time. Future work Further research is needed to improve text-analysis methods for routine use in services and to evaluate the impact of methods (digital and non-digital) on service improvement in varied contexts and among diverse patients and carers. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST)- sitting-up vs lying-flat positioning of patients with acute stroke: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background Positioning a patient lying-flat in the acute phase of ischaemic stroke may improve recovery and reduce disability, but such a possibility has not been formally tested in a randomised trial. We therefore initiated the Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) to determine the effects of lying-flat (0°) compared with sitting-up (≥30°) head positioning in the first 24 hours of hospital admission for patients with acute stroke. Methods/Design We plan to conduct an international, cluster randomised, crossover, open, blinded outcome-assessed clinical trial involving 140 study hospitals (clusters) with established acute stroke care programs. Each hospital will be randomly assigned to sequential policies of lying-flat (0°) or sitting-up (≥30°) head position as a ‘business as usual’ stroke care policy during the first 24 hours of admittance. Each hospital is required to recruit 60 consecutive patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), and all patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) (an estimated average of 10), in the first randomised head position policy before crossing over to the second head position policy with a similar recruitment target. After collection of in-hospital clinical and management data and 7-day outcomes, central trained blinded assessors will conduct a telephone disability assessment with the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. The primary outcome for analysis is a shift (defined as improvement) in death or disability on this scale. For a cluster size of 60 patients with AIS per intervention and with various assumptions including an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.03, a sample size of 16,800 patients at 140 centres will provide 90 % power (α 0.05) to detect at least a 16 % relative improvement (shift) in an ordinal logistic regression analysis of the primary outcome. The treatment effect will also be assessed in all patients with ICH who are recruited during each treatment study period. Discussion HeadPoST is a large international clinical trial in which we will rigorously evaluate the effects of different head positioning in patients with acute stroke. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162017 (date of registration: 27 April 2014); ANZCTR identifier: ACTRN12614000483651 (date of registration: 9 May 2014). Protocol version and date: version 2.2, 19 June 2014

The NIHR collaboration for leadership in applied health research and care (CLAHRC) for greater manchester: combining empirical, theoretical and experiential evidence to design and evaluate a large-scale implementation strategy

Background: In response to policy recommendations, nine National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs) were established in England in 2008, aiming to create closer working between the health service and higher education and narrow the gap between research and its implementation in practice. The Greater Manchester (GM) CLAHRC is a partnership between the University of Manchester and twenty National Health Service (NHS) trusts, with a five-year mission to improve healthcare and reduce health inequalities for people with cardiovascular conditions. This paper outlines the GM CLAHRC approach to designing and evaluating a large-scale, evidence- and theory-informed, context-sensitive implementation programme. Discussion: The paper makes a case for embedding evaluation within the design of the implementation strategy. Empirical, theoretical, and experiential evidence relating to implementation science and methods has been synthesised to formulate eight core principles of the GM CLAHRC implementation strategy, recognising the multi-faceted nature of evidence, the complexity of the implementation process, and the corresponding need to apply approaches that are situationally relevant, responsive, flexible, and collaborative. In turn, these core principles inform the selection of four interrelated building blocks upon which the GM CLAHRC approach to implementation is founded. These determine the organizational processes, structures, and roles utilised by specific GM CLAHRC implementation projects, as well as the approach to researching implementation, and comprise: the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework; a modified version of the Model for Improvement; multiprofessional teams with designated roles to lead, facilitate, and support the implementation process; and embedded evaluation and learning. Summary: Designing and evaluating a large-scale implementation strategy that can cope with and respond to the local complexities of implementing research evidence into practice is itself complex and challenging. We present an argument for adopting an integrative, co-production approach to planning and evaluating the implementation of research into practice, drawing on an eclectic range of evidence sources.Gill Harvey, Louise Fitzgerald, Sandra Fielden, Anne McBride, Heather Waterman, David Bamford, Roman Kislo and Ruth Boade

Using routine inpatient data to identify patients at risk of hospital readmission

Background: A relatively small percentage of patients with chronic medical conditions account for a much larger percentage of inpatient costs. There is some evidence that case-management can improve health and quality-of-life and reduce the number of times these patients are readmitted. To assess whether a statistical algorithm, based on routine inpatient data, can be used to identify patients at risk of readmission and who would therefore benefit from case-management

Evaluation of reconfigurations of acute stroke services in different regions of England and lessons for implementation: a mixed-methods study

Background: Centralising acute stroke services is an example of major system change (MSC). ‘Hub and spoke’ systems, consisting of a reduced number of services providing acute stroke care over the first 72 hours following a stroke (hubs), with a larger number of services providing care beyond this phase (spokes), have been proposed to improve care and outcomes. Objective: To use formative evaluation methods to analyse reconfigurations of acute stroke services in different regions of England and to identify lessons that will help to guide future reconfigurations, by studying the following contrasting cases: (1) London (implemented 2010) – all patients eligible for Hyperacute Stroke Units (HASUs); patients admitted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; (2) Greater Manchester A (GMA) (2010) – only patients presenting within 4 hours are eligible for HASU treatment; one HASU operated 24/7, two operated from 07.00 to 19.00, Monday to Friday; (3) Greater Manchester B (GMB) (2015) – all patients eligible for HASU treatment (as in London); one HASU operated 24/7, two operated with admission extended to the hours of 07.00–23.00, Monday to Sunday; and (4) Midlands and East of England – planned 2012/13, but not implemented. Design: Impact was studied through a controlled before-and-after design, analysing clinical outcomes, clinical interventions and cost-effectiveness. The development, implementation and sustainability of changes were studied through qualitative case studies, documentation analysis (n = 1091), stakeholder interviews (n = 325) and non-participant observations (n = 92; ≈210 hours). Theory-based framework was used to link qualitative findings on process of change with quantitative outcomes. Results: Impact – the London centralisation performed significantly better than the rest of England (RoE) in terms of mortality [–1.1%, 95% confidence interval (CI) –2.1% to –0.1%], resulting in an estimated additional 96 lives saved per year beyond reductions observed in the RoE, length of stay (LOS) (–1.4 days, 95% –2.3 to –0.5 days) and delivering effective clinical interventions [e.g. arrival at a Stroke Unit (SU) within 4 hours of ‘clock start’ (when clock start refers to arrival at hospital for strokes occurring outside hospital or the appearance of symptoms for patients who are already in-patients at the time of stroke): London = 66.3% (95% CI 65.6% to 67.1%); comparator = 54.4% (95% CI 53.6% to 55.1%)]. Performance was sustained over 6 years. GMA performed significantly better than the RoE on LOS (–2.0 days, 95% CI –2.8 to –1.2 days) only. GMB (where 86% of patients were treated in HASU) performed significantly better than the RoE on LOS (–1.5 days, 95% CI –2.5 to –0.4 days) and clinical interventions [e.g. SU within 4 hours: GMB = 79.1% (95% CI 77.9% to 80.4%); comparator = 53.4% (95%CI 53.0% to 53.7%)] but not on mortality (–1.3%, 95% CI –2.7%to 0.01%; p = 0.05, accounting for reductions observed in RoE); however, there was a significant effect when examining GMB HASUs only (–1.8%, 95% CI –3.4% to –0.2%), resulting in an estimated additional 68 lives saved per year. All centralisations except GMB were cost-effective at 10 years, with a higher net monetary benefit than the RoE at a willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of £20,000–30,000. Per 1000 patients at 10 years, London resulted in an additional 58 QALYs, GMA resulted in an additional 18 QALYs and GMB resulted in an additional 6 QALYs at costs of £1,014,363, –£470,848 and £719,948, respectively. GMB was cost-effective at 90 days. Despite concerns about the potential impact of increased travel times, patients and carers reported good experiences of centralised services; this relied on clear information at every stage. Planning change – combining top-down authority and bottom-up clinical leadership was important in co-ordinating multiple stakeholders to agree service models and overcome resistance. Implementation – minimising phases of change, use of data, service standards linked to financial incentives and active facilitation of changes by stroke networks was important. The 2013 reforms of the English NHS removed sources of top-down authority and facilitative capacity, preventing centralisation (Midlands and East of England) and delaying implementation (GMB). Greater Manchester’s Operational Delivery Network, developed to provide alternative network facilitation, and London’s continued use of standards suggested important facilitators of centralisation in a post-reform context. Limitations: The main limitation of our quantitative analysis was that we were unable to control for stroke severity. In addition, findings may not apply to non-urban settings. Data on patients’ quality of life were unavailable nationally, clinical interventions measured changed over time and national participation in audits varied. Some qualitative analyses were retrospective, potentially influencing participant views. Conclusions: Centralising acute stroke services can improve clinical outcomes and care provision. Factors related to the service model implemented, how change is implemented and the context in which it is implemented are influential in improvement. We recommend further analysis of how different types of leadership contribute to MSC, patient and carer experience during the implementation of change, the impact of change on further clinical outcomes (disability and QoL) and influence of severity of stroke on clinical outcomes. Finally, our findings should be assessed in relation to MSC implemented in other health-care specialties. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme