Early warning systems and rapid response to the deteriorating patient in hospital: a realist evaluation.

AIM: To identify those contexts and mechanisms that enable or constrain the implementation of Rapid Response Systems on acute general hospital wards to recognise and respond to patient deterioration. BACKGROUND: Rapid Response Systems allow deteriorating patients to be recognised using Early Warning Systems, referred early via escalation protocols and managed at the bedside by competent staff. DESIGN: Realist Evaluation. METHODS: The research design was an embedded multiple case study approach of four wards in two hospitals in Northern Ireland which followed the principles of Realist Evaluation. We used various mixed methods including individual and focus group interviews, observation of nursing practice between June - November 2010 and document analysis of Early Warning Systems audit data between May - October 2010 and hospital acute care training records over 4.5 years from 2003-2008. Data were analysed using NiVivo8 and SPPS. RESULTS: A cross case analysis highlighted similar patterns of factors which enabled or constrained successful recognition, referral and response to deteriorating patients in practice. Key enabling factors were the use of clinical judgement by experienced nurses and the empowerment of nurses as a result of organisational change associated with implementation of Early Warning System protocols. Key constraining factors were low staffing and inappropriate skill mix levels, rigid implementation of protocols and culturally-embedded suboptimal communication processes. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of Rapid Response Systems was dependent on adopting organisational and cultural changes that facilitated staff empowerment, flexible implementation of protocols and ongoing experiential learning. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Developing and evaluating packages to support implementation of quality indicators in general practice : the ASPIRE research programme, including two cluster RCTs

This is the final version. Available from the NIHR Journals Library via the DOI in this recordData-sharing statement: All data requests should be submitted to the corresponding author for consideration. Access to anonymised data may be granted following review.Background Dissemination of clinical guidelines is necessary but seldom sufficient by itself to ensure the reliable uptake of evidence-based practice. There are further challenges in implementing multiple clinical guidelines and clinical practice recommendations in the pressurised environment of general practice. Objectives We aimed to develop and evaluate an implementation package that could be adapted to support the uptake of a range of clinical guideline recommendations and be sustainably integrated within general practice systems and resources. Over five linked work packages, we developed ‘high-impact’ quality indicators to show where a measurable change in clinical practice can improve patient outcomes (work package 1), analysed adherence to selected indicators (work package 2), developed an adaptable implementation package (work package 3), evaluated the effects and cost-effectiveness of adapted implementation packages targeting four indicators (work package 4) and examined intervention fidelity and mechanisms of action (work package 5). Setting and participants Health-care professionals and patients from general practices in West Yorkshire, UK. Design We reviewed recommendations from existing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidance and used a multistage consensus process, including 11 professionals and patients, to derive a set of ‘high-impact’ evidence-based indicators that could be measured using routinely collected data (work package 1). In 89 general practices that shared data, we found marked variations and scope for improvement in adherence to several indicators (work package 2). Interviews with 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers explored perceived determinants of adherence to selected indicators and suggested the feasibility of adapting an implementation package to target different indicators (work package 3). We worked with professional and patient panels to develop four adapted implementation packages. These targeted risky prescribing involving non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and antiplatelet drugs, type 2 diabetes control, blood pressure control and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. The implementation packages embedded behaviour change techniques within audit and feedback, educational outreach and (for risky prescribing) computerised prompts. We randomised 178 practices to implementation packages targeting either diabetes control or risky prescribing (trial 1), or blood pressure control or anticoagulation (trial 2), or to a further control (non-intervention) group, and undertook economic modelling (work package 4). In trials 1 and 2, practices randomised to the implementation package for one indicator acted as control practices for the other package, and vice versa. A parallel process evaluation included a further eight practices (work package 5). Main outcome measures Trial primary end points at 11 months comprised achievement of all recommended levels of glycated haemoglobin, blood pressure and cholesterol; risky prescribing levels; achievement of recommended blood pressure; and anticoagulation prescribing. Results We recruited 178 (73%) out of 243 eligible general practices. We randomised 80 practices to trial 1 (40 per arm) and 64 to trial 2 (32 per arm), with 34 non-intervention controls. The risky prescribing implementation package reduced risky prescribing (odds ratio 0.82, 97.5% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.99; p = 0.017) with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2337 per quality-adjusted life-year. The other three packages had no effect on primary end points. The process evaluation suggested that trial outcomes were influenced by losses in fidelity throughout intervention delivery and enactment, and by the nature of the targeted clinical and patient behaviours. Limitations Our programme was conducted in one geographical area; however, practice and patient population characteristics are otherwise likely to be sufficiently diverse and typical to enhance generalisability to the UK. We used an ‘opt-out’ approach to recruit general practices to the randomised trials. Subsequently, our trial practices may have engaged with the implementation package less than if they had actively volunteered. However, this approach increases confidence in the wider applicability of trial findings as it replicates guideline implementation activities under standard conditions. Conclusions This pragmatic, rigorous evaluation indicates the value of an implementation package targeting risky prescribing. In broad terms, an adapted ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach did not consistently work, with no improvement for other targeted indicators. Future work There are challenges in designing ‘one-size-fits-all’ implementation strategies that are sufficiently robust to bring about change in the face of difficult clinical contexts and fidelity losses. We recommend maximising feasibility and ‘stress testing’ prior to rolling out interventions within a definitive evaluation. Our programme has led on to other work, adapting audit and feedback for other priorities and evaluating different ways of delivering feedback to improve patient care.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Integrated care to address the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness : a rapid review

Background People with mental health conditions have a lower life expectancy and poorer physical health outcomes than the general population. Evidence suggests that this discrepancy is driven by a combination of clinical risk factors, socioeconomic factors and health system factors. Objective(s) To explore current service provision and map the recent evidence on models of integrated care addressing the physical health needs of people with severe mental illness (SMI) primarily within the mental health service setting. The research was designed as a rapid review of published evidence from 2013–15, including an update of a comprehensive 2013 review, together with further grey literature and insights from an expert advisory group. Synthesis We conducted a narrative synthesis, using a guiding framework based on nine previously identified factors considered to be facilitators of good integrated care for people with mental health problems, supplemented by additional issues emerging from the evidence. Descriptive data were used to identify existing models, perceived facilitators and barriers to their implementation, and any areas for further research. Findings and discussion The synthesis incorporated 45 publications describing 36 separate approaches to integrated care, along with further information from the advisory group. Most service models were multicomponent programmes incorporating two or more of the nine factors: (1) information sharing systems; (2) shared protocols; (3) joint funding/commissioning; (4) colocated services; (5) multidisciplinary teams; (6) liaison services; (7) navigators; (8) research; and (9) reduction of stigma. Few of the identified examples were described in detail and fewer still were evaluated, raising questions about the replicability and generalisability of much of the existing evidence. However, some common themes did emerge from the evidence. Efforts to improve the physical health care of people with SMI should empower people (staff and service users) and help remove everyday barriers to delivering and accessing integrated care. In particular, there is a need for improved communication between professionals and better information technology to support them, greater clarity about who is responsible and accountable for physical health care, and awareness of the effects of stigmatisation on the wider culture and environment in which services are delivered. Limitations and future work The literature identified in the rapid review was limited in volume and often lacked the depth of description necessary to acquire new insights. All members of our advisory group were based in England, so this report has limited information on the NHS contexts specific to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A conventional systematic review of this topic would not appear to be appropriate in the immediate future, although a more interpretivist approach to exploring this literature might be feasible. Wherever possible, future evaluations should involve service users and be clear about which outcomes, facilitators and barriers are likely to be context-specific and which might be generalisable

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a human rights based approach to dementia care in inpatient ward and care home settings

BackgroundAlthough it is widely recognised that adopting a person-centred approach is beneficial in the care of people living with dementia, a gap remains between the rhetoric and the reality of quality care. Some widely adopted care practices can result in the personhood of this group being threatened and their human rights being undermined.ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of applying a human rights based approach in dementia inpatient wards and care homes on the quality of care delivered and the well-being of the person living with dementia.DesignA cluster randomised design was employed to compare the impact of implementing a human rights based approach intervention (i.e. training, applying the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool and receiving booster sessions) at 10 intervention sites with 10 control sites.SettingEight NHS dementia inpatient wards and 12 care homes in the north-west of England.ParticipantsPeople living with dementia who were residing on dementia inpatient wards or in care homes, and staff working at these sites. The aim was to recruit 280 people living with dementia.InterventionsA sample of staff (an average of 8.9 per site) at each of the sites was trained in a human rights based approach to care, including the application of the ‘Getting It Right’ assessment tool. The tool was then introduced at the site and monthly booster sessions were delivered.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure used in the research was the Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease scale to assess the subjective well-being of the person with dementia. Secondary outcome measures included measures of the quality of care provided (dementia care mapping) and direct measures of the effectiveness of the training in increasing knowledge of and attitudes towards human rights. The study also included an economic evaluation utilising the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level version, and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit measure.ResultsThe study recruited 439 people living with dementia: 213 to the intervention arm and 226 to the control arm. Primary outcome data were analysed using a linear mixed model. There were no significant differences found in the reported quality of life of residents between the control and intervention groups after the intervention [F(1,16.51) = 3.63;p = 0.074]. The mean difference between the groups was 1.48 (95% confidence interval –7.86 to 10.82).ConclusionsDespite the fact that the training increased staff knowledge of and positive attitudes towards human rights, and although there were some changes in staff decision-making strategies in clinical situations, there was no change in the quality of care provided or in the reported well-being of people living with dementia in these settings. This led to questions about the efficacy of training in bringing about cultural change and improving care practices.LimitationsThere was limited uptake of the training and booster sessions that were integral to the intervention.Future workFuture work could usefully focus on understanding the difficulty in translating change in attitude and knowledge into behaviour.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN94553028.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 6, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.</jats:sec

Context of care and service delivery

This chapter explores some of the current political, economic and social policies that are shaping the context of nursing practice and service delivery for children and young people with long‐term illnesses. Examples of service models and nursing roles are used, demonstrating their influence upon the shifting boundaries of clinical practice and service delivery. The chapter also explores the complexities surrounding shifting health and social care workforce role boundaries, associated competencies and their impact upon service users, professionals and managers. There have been changes to the mechanisms for funding and commissioning health care services to encourage more integrated local needs‐based commissioning and increasing accountability and governance of health care expenditure. The chapter considers some of the implications of the political, social and economic drivers upon service from a practice context. It highlights the impact on the roles of parents and nurses, and service challenges that need to be addressed to support these changes