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

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

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

A Primer on Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement for Interprofessional Chronic Kidney Disease Care: A Path to Joint Commission Certification.

Interprofessional care for chronic kidney disease facilitates the delivery of high quality, comprehensive care to a complex, at-risk population. Interprofessional care is resource intensive and requires a value proposition. Joint Commission certification is a voluntary process that improves patient outcomes, provides external validity to hospital administration and enhances visibility to patients and referring providers. This is a single-center, retrospective study describing quality assurance and performance improvement in chronic kidney disease, Joint Commission certification and quality outcomes. A total of 440 patients were included in the analysis. Thirteen quality indicators consisting of clinical and process of care indicators were developed and measured for a period of two years from 2009-2017. Significant improvements or at least persistently high performance were noted for key quality indicators such as blood pressure control (85%), estimation of cardiovascular risk (100%), measurement of hemoglobin A1c (98%), vaccination (93%), referrals for vascular access and transplantation (100%), placement of permanent dialysis access (61%), discussion of advanced directives (94%), online patient education (71%) and completion of office visit documentation (100%). High patient satisfaction scores (94-96%) are consistent with excellent quality of care provided

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

A Brief History of Quality Improvement in Health Care and Spinal Surgery.

While medical and technological advances continue to shape and advance health care, there has been growing emphasis on translating these advances into improvement in overall health care quality outcomes in the United States. Innovators such as Abraham Flexner and Ernest Codman engaged in rigorous reviews of systems and patient outcomes igniting wider spread interest in quality improvement in health care. Codman\u27s efforts even contributed to the founding of the American College of Surgeons. This society catalyzed a quality improvement initiative across the United States and the formation of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. Since that time, those such as Avedis Donabedian and the Institute of Medicine have worked to structure the process of improving both the quality and delivery of health care. Significant advances include the defining of minimum standards for hospital accreditation, 7 pillars of quality in medicine, and the process by which quality in medicine is evaluated. All of these factors have affected current practice more each day. In a field such as spinal surgery, cost and quality measures are continually emphasized and led to large outcome databases to better evaluate outcomes in complex, heterogeneous populations. Going forward, these databases will be instrumental in developing practice patterns and improving spinal surgery outcomes

Stroke Quality Measures in Mexican Americans and Non-Hispanic Whites

Mexican Americans (MAs) have been shown to have worse outcomes after stroke than non-Hispanic Whites (NHWs), but it is unknown if ethnic differences in stroke quality of care may contribute to these worse outcomes. We investigated ethnic differences in the quality of inpatient stroke care between MAs and NHWs within the population-based prospective Brain Attack Surveillance in Corpus Christi (BASIC) Project (February 2009- June 2012). Quality measures for inpatient stroke care, based on the 2008 Joint Commission Primary Stroke Center definitions were assessed from the medical record by a trained abstractor. Two summary measure of overall quality were also created (binary measure of defect-free care and the proportion of measures achieved for which the patient was eligible). 757 individuals were included (480 MAs and 277 NHWs). MAs were younger, more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, and less likely to have atrial fibrillation than NHWs. MAs were less likely than NHWs to receive tPA (RR: 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52, 0.98), and MAs with atrial fibrillation were less likely to receive anticoagulant medications at discharge than NHWs (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.94). There were no ethnic differences in the other individual quality measures, or in the two summary measures assessing overall quality. In conclusion, there were no ethnic differences in the overall quality of stroke care between MAs and NHWs, though ethnic differences were seen in the proportion of patients who received tPA and anticoagulant at discharge for atrial fibrillation

“I live with other people and not alone”: a survey of the views and experiences of older people using Shared Lives (adult placement)

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to report on the views and experiences of older people using Shared Lives (adult placement) in 2012/2013. Design/methodology/approach: As part of a survey collecting information about outcomes for older users of Shared Lives issues of whether it had made a difference to quality of life, and positive and negative experiences of support were explored. Findings: Questionnaires were returned by 150 older people using Shared Lives services. Findings suggest that this model of community-based support has a number of advantages for some older people, such as reducing social isolation and loneliness, promoting independence, choice and control, providing emotional support and increased well-being. Research limitations/implications: The questionnaire was self-completed and so responses were not followed up to provide deeper insights. Practical implications: Shared Lives is not appropriate for everyone but it is suggested that this option should form part of local commissioning strategies, be part of a range of options for social care practitioners to consider in their work with older people and helps to meet various current policy imperatives. Originality/value: The potential of Shared Lives for older people is under-researched and this paper contributes to the literature in exploring the views of older people about family-based support in the community