User involvement in regulation: A qualitative study of service user involvement in Care Quality Commission inspections of health and social care providers in England

Background High profile failures of care in the NHS have raised concerns about regulatory systems for health‐care professionals and organizations. In response, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), the regulator of health and social care in England overhauled its regulatory regime. It moved to inspections which made much greater use of expert knowledge, data and views from a range of stakeholders, including service users. Objective We explore the role of service users and citizens in health and social care regulation, including how CQC involved people in inspecting and rating health and social care providers. Design We analyse CQC reports and documents, and 61 interviews with CQC staff and representatives of groups of service users and citizens and voluntary sector organizations to explore the place of service user voice in regulatory processes. Results Care Quality Commission invited comments and facilitated the sharing of existing service user experiences and engaged with representatives of groups of service users and voluntary sector organizations. CQC involved service users in their inspections as “experts by experience.” Information from service users informed both the inspection regime and individual inspections, but CQC was less focused on giving feedback to service users who contributed to these activities. Discussion and conclusions Service users can make an important contribution to regulation by sharing their experiences and having their voices heard, but their involvement was somewhat transactional, and largely on terms set by CQC. There may be scope for CQC to build more enduring relationships with service user groups and to engage them more effectively in the regulatory regime

Qualitative systematic literature review: the experience of being in seclusion for adults with mental health difficulties

Purpose: To conduct a systematic search of the peer-reviewed qualitative literature investigating the lived experience of seclusion for adults with mental health difficulties, to appraise the quality of the existing literature and synthesise findings. Background: Seclusion is a controversial intervention for the short-term management of unsafe behaviours in inpatient mental health services. There has been some sporadic interest in the service-users' experiences of this. Design: Systematic literature review and meta-synthesis. Data Sources: Databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PSYCHINFO were searched in July 2015. Review Methods: The JBI QARI tools for critical appraisal and data extraction were used to review papers and synthesise findings. Findings: A small number of papers was found, which were of mixed quality. Value: The existing research is limited in both quantity and quality. Although most participants from the existing research described seclusion as mostly negative with the potential for causing iatrogenic harm, some described more positive experiences, often in the context of compassionate interactions with staff. Summary Statement: Why is this research or review needed? • The use of seclusion is common within mental health services but there is an absence of evidence for the purported theoretical rationale for its use. • Studies of the experiences of individuals placed in seclusion are small in number, of mixed quality and with mixed findings. • A systematic literature review and meta-synthesis of the existing qualitative literature investigating the lived experience of seclusion for adults with mental health difficulties was conducted, to synthesize the existing evidence base and make suggestions for future developments in research and practice. What are the key findings? • The existing research is limited both in quantity and quality. • Despite the limitations of existing research, the evidence does not support the purported theoretical rationale for the therapeutic use of seclusion. This poses a significant challenge to a common practice within mental health settings. • Seclusion has the potential to cause iatrogenic harm, particularly where interactions with nursing staff are not experienced as compassionate. • The actions of nursing staff in implementing seclusion procedures may mitigate iatrogenic harm. • Individuals who have experienced seclusion have suggestions for how to improve its use. How should the findings be used to influence policy/practice/research/education? • There is clearly scope for further, high quality research into people’s experiences of seclusion, particularly within the UK. • The findings include concrete ways in which the practice of seclusion can be improved. • Action research methods may offer a useful way of implementing and evaluating changes in practice

The meaning and importance of dignified care: Findings from a survey of health and social care professionals

This article is available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. Copyright © 2013 Cairns et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.There are well established national and local policies championing the need to provide dignity in care for older people. We have evidence as to what older people and their relatives understand by the term 'dignified care' but less insight into the perspectives of staff regarding their understanding of this key policy objective.This research was supported by the Dunhill Medical Trust [grant number: R93/1108]

Study on day care : report and recommendations

xx, 121 p. ; 28 cm

What next for Shared Lives? Family-based support as a potential option for older people

With an ageing population and limited resources the challenge for policy makers and practitioners is how best to provide for the care and support needs of older people. This article draws on findings from two studies, a scoping study of the personalisation of care services and another which aimed to generate evidence about the potential use of family-based support schemes (Shared Lives, SL) for certain groups of older people. Forty-three schemes participated in a survey to gather information about services provided and the extent to which this included older people and their carers, and six staffs were interviewed across two schemes about issues for expanding provision for older people in their local areas. It was evident that SL schemes were already supporting a number of older people and there was support for expansion from both schemes and local authorities. Adequate resources, awareness raising, management commitment, and a pool of suitable carers would be needed to support any expansion effort. There is also still a need for SL to be more widely known and understood by care managers if it is to be considered part of mainstream provision for older people

A qualitative exploration of mental health service user and carer perspectives on safety issues in UK mental health services

Background Service user and carer perspectives on safety issues in mental health services are not well known and may be important in preventing and reducing harm. The development of the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework—Mental Health (YCFF‐MH) provides a broad structure within which to explore these perspectives. Objective To explore what service users of mental health services and their carers consider to be safety issues. Design, setting and participants Qualitative interviews with 13 service users and 7 carers in the UK. Participants were asked about their experiences and perceptions of safety within mental health services. Perceived safety issues were identified using framework analysis, guided by the YCFF‐MH. Results Service users and carers identified a broad range of safety issues. These were categorized under ‘safety culture’ and included psychological concepts of safety and raising concerns; ‘social environment’ involved threatened violence and sexual abuse; ‘individual service user and staff factors’ dominated by not being listened to; ‘management of staff and staffing levels’ resulting in poor continuity of care; and ‘service process’ typified by difficulty accessing services during a crisis. Several examples of ‘active failures’ were also described. Discussion and conclusions Safety issues appear broader than those recorded and reported by health services and inspectorates. Many safety issues have also been identified in other care settings supporting the notion that there are overlaps between service users and carers’ perspectives of safety in mental health services and those of users in other settings. Areas for further research are suggested

Analysing 'big picture' policy reform mechanisms: The Australian health service safety and quality accreditation scheme

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Background: Agencies promoting national health-care accreditation reform to improve the quality of care and safety of patients are largely working without specific blueprints that can increase the likelihood of success. Objective: This study investigated the development and implementation of the Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme and National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (the Scheme), their expected benefits, and challenges and facilitators to implementation. Methods: A multimethod study was conducted using document analysis, observation and interviews. Data sources were eight government reports, 25 h of observation and 34 interviews with 197 diverse stakeholders. Results: Development of the Scheme was achieved through extensive consultation conducted over a prolonged period, that is, from 2000 onwards. Participants, prior to implementation, believed the Scheme would produce benefits at multiple levels of the health system. The Scheme offered a national framework to promote patient-centred care, allowing organizations to engage and coordinate professionals' quality improvement activities. Significant challenges are apparent, including developing and maintaining stakeholder understanding of the Scheme's requirements. Risks must also be addressed. The standardized application of, and reliable assessment against, the standards must be achieved to maintain credibility with the Scheme. Government employment of effective stakeholder engagement strategies, such as structured consultation processes, was viewed as necessary for successful, sustainable implementation. Conclusion: The Australian experience demonstrates that national accreditation reform can engender widespread stakeholder support, but implementation challenges must be overcome. In particular, the fundamental role of continued stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood that such reforms are taken up and spread across health systems

See me, not just the dementia - Understanding people's experiences of living in a care home.

yesThis report looks at the experiences of people with dementia living in care homes in England, with a particular focus on whether their care offers dignity and respect. Most similar studies have relied on the views of carers, care staff and people in the early stages of dementia. This study examines directly the experiences of people including those with advanced dementia

Patient and nurse preferences for implementation of bedside handover: Do they agree? Findings from a discrete choice experiment

Objective: To describe and compare patients' and nurses' preferences for the implementation of bedside handover. Design: Discrete choice experiment describing handover choices using six characteristics: whether the patient is invited to participate; whether a family member/carer/friend is invited; the number of nurses present; the level of patient involvement; the information content; and privacy. Setting: Two Australian hospitals. Participants: Adult patients (n=401) and nurses (n=200) recruited from medical wards. Main outcome measures: Mean importance scores for handover characteristics estimated using mixed multinomial logit regression of the choice data. Results: Both patient and nurse participants preferred handover at the bedside rather than elsewhere (P<.05). Being invited to participate, supporting strong two-way communication, having a family member/carer/friend present and having two nurses rather than the nursing team present were most important for patients. Patients being invited to participate and supporting strong two-way communication were most important for nurses. However, contrary to patient preferences, having a family member/carer/friend present was not considered important by nurses. Further, while patients expressed a weak preference to have sensitive information handed over quietly at the bedside, nurses expressed a relatively strong preference for handover of sensitive information verbally away from the bedside. Conclusions: All participants strongly support handover at the bedside and want patients to participate although patient and nurse preferences for various aspects of bedside handover differ. An understanding of these preferences is expected to support recommendations for improving the patient hospital experience and the consistent implementation of bedside handover as a safety initiative