Seven features of safety in maternity units: a framework based on multisite ethnography and stakeholder consultation

Background: Reducing avoidable harm in maternity services is a priority globally. As well as learning from mistakes, it is important to produce rigorous descriptions of ‘what good looks like’. Objective: We aimed to characterise features of safety in maternity units and to generate a plain language framework that could be used to guide learning and improvement. Methods: We conducted a multisite ethnography involving 401 hours of non-participant observations 33 semistructured interviews with staff across six maternity units, and a stakeholder consultation involving 65 semistructured telephone interviews and one focus group. Results: We identified seven features of safety in maternity units and summarised them into a framework, named For Us (For Unit Safety). The features include: (1) commitment to safety and improvement at all levels, with everyone involved; (2) technical competence, supported by formal training and informal learning; (3) teamwork, cooperation and positive working relationships; (4) constant reinforcing of safe, ethical and respectful behaviours; (5) multiple problem-sensing systems, used as basis of action; (6) systems and processes designed for safety, and regularly reviewed and optimised; (7) effective coordination and ability to mobilise quickly. These features appear to have a synergistic character, such that each feature is necessary but not sufficient on its own: the features operate in concert through multiple forms of feedback and amplification. Conclusions: This large qualitative study has enabled the generation of a new plain language framework—For Us—that identifies the behaviours and practices that appear to be features of safe care in hospital-based maternity units

How to specify healthcare process improvements collaboratively using rapid, remote consensus-building: a framework and a case study of its application

Abstract: Background: Practical methods for facilitating process improvement are needed to support high quality, safe care. How best to specify (identify and define) process improvements – the changes that need to be made in a healthcare process – remains a key question. Methods for doing so collaboratively, rapidly and remotely offer much potential, but are under-developed. We propose an approach for engaging diverse stakeholders remotely in a consensus-building exercise to help specify improvements in a healthcare process, and we illustrate the approach in a case study. Methods: Organised in a five-step framework, our proposed approach is informed by a participatory ethos, crowdsourcing and consensus-building methods: (1) define scope and objective of the process improvement; (2) produce a draft or prototype of the proposed process improvement specification; (3) identify participant recruitment strategy; (4) design and conduct a remote consensus-building exercise; (5) produce a final specification of the process improvement in light of learning from the exercise. We tested the approach in a case study that sought to specify process improvements for the management of obstetric emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a brief video showing a process for managing a post-partum haemorrhage in women with COVID-19 to elicit recommendations on how the process could be improved. Two Delphi rounds were then conducted to reach consensus. Results: We gathered views from 105 participants, with a background in maternity care (n = 36), infection prevention and control (n = 17), or human factors (n = 52). The participants initially generated 818 recommendations for how to improve the process illustrated in the video, which we synthesised into a set of 22 recommendations. The consensus-building exercise yielded a final set of 16 recommendations. These were used to inform the specification of process improvements for managing the obstetric emergency and develop supporting resources, including an updated video. Conclusions: The proposed methodological approach enabled the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to be captured and mobilised to specify process improvements in an area of pressing service need. This approach has the potential to address current challenges in process improvement, but will require further evaluation

An exploration of how the concept of the ‘well led’ hospital trust is defined and understood by NHS staff across a range of organisational managerial levels.

Abstract The aim of this PhD study was to gain greater understanding of staff experience of being well led within a NHS Hospital Trust rated ‘well led’ by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), to better understand the potential contribution leaders could make to improve quality of patient care. A qualitative case study method was utilised to explore staff experiences in the ‘well led’ Trust. A theoretical framework was developed to underpin the methodological process, incorporating components of learning organisational theory (Argyris 1995 & Senge 1990) and an interpretive grounded theory approach was applied (Charmaz 2006). Four main themes were identified: • A sense of ‘family’, particularly a focus on shared values and behaviours that prioritised both patient and staff wellbeing. • A strong preference for a distributed leadership model that was balanced against a need for a hierarchical model. • A learning approach was balanced against a robust commitment to sanction behaviours outside the values of the organisation. • A clear ambition to build resilience and embed these values to sustain the ‘well led’ approach in the face of significant financial pressures and work force challenges. Many of the principles of learning organisation theory, identified by Argyris (1992) & Senge (1990), were visible across all four themes. However, there were also some important differences. In particular, there were challenges related to the organisational requirement to balance strategies to both promote staff commitment, as well as compliance. Furthermore, there were similar challenges linking parallel, but disparate models of distributed and hierarchical leadership. The findings identified both the features of a well led NHS Trust and also some challenges. These new insights contribute to our current understanding of ‘well led’ Trusts, which can be used to improve Trust level leadership more broadly in the NHS, and also provide a framework for further research in this area