Taking the heat or taking the temperature? A qualitative study of a large-scale exercise in seeking to measure for improvement, not blame.

Measurement of quality and safety has an important role in improving healthcare, but is susceptible to unintended consequences. One frequently made argument is that optimising the benefits from measurement requires controlling the risks of blame, but whether it is possible to do this remains unclear. We examined responses to a programme known as the NHS Safety Thermometer (NHS-ST). Measuring four common patient harms in diverse care settings with the goal of supporting local improvement, the programme explicitly eschews a role for blame. The study design was ethnographic. We conducted 115 hours of observation across 19 care organisations and conducted 126 interviews with frontline staff, senior national leaders, experts in the four harms, and the NHS-ST programme leadership and development team. We also collected and analysed relevant documents. The programme theory of the NHS-ST was based in a logic of measurement for improvement: the designers of the programme sought to avoid the appropriation of the data for any purpose other than supporting improvement. However, organisational participants - both at frontline and senior levels - were concerned that the NHS-ST functioned latently as a blame allocation device. These perceptions were influenced, first, by field-level logics of accountability and managerialism and, second, by specific features of the programme, including public reporting, financial incentives, and ambiguities about definitions that amplified the concerns. In consequence, organisational participants, while they identified some merits of the programme, tended to identify and categorise it as another example of performance management, rich in potential for blame. These findings indicate that the search to optimise the benefits of measurement by controlling the risks of blame remains challenging. They further suggest that a well-intentioned programme theory, while necessary, may not be sufficient for achieving goals for improvement in healthcare systems dominated by institutional logics that run counter to the programme theory

Measurement of harms in community care:a qualitative study of use of the NHS Safety Thermometer

Objectives Measurement is a vital part of improvement work. While it is known that the context of improvement work influences its success, less is known about how context affects measurement of underlying harms. We sought to explore the use of a harm measurement tool, the NHS Safety Thermometer (NHS-ST), designed for use across diverse healthcare settings in the particular context of community care. Methods This is a qualitative study of 19 National Health Service (NHS) organisations, 7 of which had community service provision. We conducted ethnographic observations of practice and interviews with front-line nursing and senior staff. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method. Results Measurement in community settings presents distinct challenges, calling into question the extent to which measures can be easily transferred. The NHS-ST was seen as more appropriate for acute care, not least because community nurses did not have the same access to information. Data collection requirements were in tension with maintaining a relationship of trust with patients. The aim to collect data across care settings acted to undermine perceptions of the representativeness of community data. Although the tool was designed to measure preventable harms, care providers questioned their preventability within a community setting. Different harms were seen as priorities for measurement and improvement within community settings. Conclusions Measurement tools are experienced by healthcare staff as socially situated. In the community setting, there are distinct challenges to improving care quality not experienced in the acute sector. Strategies to measure harms, and use of any resulting data for improvement work, need to be cognisant of the complexity of an environment where healthcare staff often have little opportunity to monitor and influence patients

Risk of skin cancer after neonatal phototherapy : retrospective cohort study

Peer reviewedPostprin

Integrating Behavioral Health & Primary Care in New Hampshire: A Path Forward to Sustainable Practice & Payment Transformation

New Hampshire residents face challenges with behavioral and physical health conditions and the interplay between them. National studies show the costs and the burden of illness from behavioral health conditions and co-occurring chronic health conditions that are not adequately treated in either primary care or behavioral health settings. Bringing primary health and behavioral health care together in integrated care settings can improve outcomes for both behavioral and physical health conditions. Primary care integrated behavioral health works in conjunction with specialty behavioral health providers, expanding capacity, improving access, and jointly managing the care of patients with higher levels of acuity In its work to improve the health of NH residents and create effective and cost-effective systems of care, the NH Citizens Health Initiative (Initiative) created the NH Behavioral Health Integration Learning Collaborative (BHI Learning Collaborative) in November of 2015, as a project of its Accountable Care Learning Network (NHACLN). Bringing together more than 60 organizations, including providers of all types and sizes, all of the state’s community mental health centers, all of the major private and public insurers, and government and other stakeholders, the BHI Learning Collaborative built on earlier work of a NHACLN Workgroup focused on improving care for depression and co-occurring chronic illness. The BHI Learning Collaborative design is based on the core NHACLN philosophy of “shared data and shared learning” and the importance of transparency and open conversation across all stakeholder groups. The first year of the BHI Learning Collaborative programming included shared learning on evidence-based practice for integrated behavioral health in primary care, shared data from the NH Comprehensive Healthcare Information System (NHCHIS), and work to develop sustainable payment models to replace inadequate Fee-for-Service (FFS) revenues. Provider members joined either a Project Implementation Track working on quality improvement projects to improve their levels of integration or a Listen and Learn Track for those just learning about Behavioral Health Integration (BHI). Providers in the Project Implementation Track completed a self-assessment of levels of BHI in their practice settings and committed to submit EHR-based clinical process and outcomes data to track performance on specified measures. All providers received access to unblinded NHACLN Primary Care and Behavioral Health attributed claims data from the NHCHIS for provider organizations in the NH BHI Learning Collaborative. Following up on prior work focused on developing a sustainable model for integrating care for depression and co-occurring chronic illness in primary care settings, the BHI Learning Collaborative engaged consulting experts and participants in understanding challenges in Health Information Technology and Exchange (HIT/HIE), privacy and confidentiality, and workforce adequacy. The BHI Learning Collaborative identified a sustainable payment model for integrated care of depression in primary care. In the process of vetting the payment model, the BHI Learning Collaborative also identified and explored challenges in payment for Substance Use Disorder Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). New Hampshire’s residents will benefit from a health care system where primary care and behavioral health are integrated to support the care of the whole person. New Hampshire’s current opiate epidemic accentuates the need for better screening for behavioral health issues, prevention, and treatment referral integrated into primary care. New Hampshire providers and payers are poised to move towards greater integration of behavioral health and primary care and the Initiative looks forward to continuing to support progress in supporting a path to sustainable integrated behavioral and primary care

Investigation of the international comparability of population-based routine hospital data set derived comorbidity scores for patients with lung cancer

Introduction: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) identified significant international differences in lung cancer survival. Differing levels of comorbid disease across ICBP countries has been suggested as a potential explanation of this variation but, to date, no studies have quantified its impact. This study investigated whether comparable, robust comorbidity scores can be derived from the different routine population-based cancer data sets available in the ICBP jurisdictions and, if so, use them to quantify international variation in comorbidity and determine its influence on outcome. Methods: Linked population-based lung cancer registry and hospital discharge data sets were acquired from nine ICBP jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Norway and the UK providing a study population of 233 981 individuals. For each person in this cohort Charlson, Elixhauser and inpatient bed day Comorbidity Scores were derived relating to the 4–36 months prior to their lung cancer diagnosis. The scores were then compared to assess their validity and feasibility of use in international survival comparisons. Results: It was feasible to generate the three comorbidity scores for each jurisdiction, which were found to have good content, face and concurrent validity. Predictive validity was limited and there was evidence that the reliability was questionable. Conclusion: The results presented here indicate that interjurisdictional comparability of recorded comorbidity was limited due to probable differences in coding and hospital admission practices in each area. Before the contribution of comorbidity on international differences in cancer survival can be investigated an internationally harmonised comorbidity index is required

Sense of entitlement to support for the reconciliation of employment and family life

This article explores young European women and men’s expectations of support - from the state and employers - for reconciling paid employment and family life. It is based on a qualitative study employing focus groups with young women and men in Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Ireland and the UK. Drawing on the concept of sense of entitlement, derived from social justice theory, it was expected that the type of welfare state and ‘gender contract’ that young adults have experienced will influence their sense of entitlement to support for work and family life. Findings indicate that participants perceived their entitlement to state and employer support differently across national context. However this is moderated by gender, parental and occupational status, and particularly by awareness of provisions in other countries in the case of state support, while perceived entitlement to employer support varies according to the specific policy considered, gender and perception of benefits to employers. Some implications for public policy makers and employers are discussed

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

A qualitative study of participants' views on re-consent in a longitudinal biobank

BACKGROUND: Biomedical research increasingly relies on long-term studies involving use and re-use of biological samples and data stored in large repositories or "biobanks" over lengthy periods, often raising questions about whether and when a re-consenting process should be activated. We sought to investigate the views on re-consent of participants in a longitudinal biobank. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with 24 people who were participating in a longitudinal biobank. Their views were elicited using a semi-structured interview schedule and scenarios based on a hypothetical biobank. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: What participants identified as requiring new consent was not a straightforward matter predictable by algorithms about the scope of the consent, but instead was contingent. They assessed whether proposed new research implied a fundamental alteration in the underlying character of the biobank and whether specific projects were within the scope of the original consent. What mattered most to them was that the cooperative bargain into which they had entered was maintained in good faith. They saw re-consent as one important safeguard in this bargain. In determining what required re-consent, they deployed two logics. First, they used a logic of boundaries, where they sought to detect any possible rupture with their existing framework of cooperation. Second, they used a logic of risk, where they assessed proposed research for any potential threats for them personally or the research endeavour. When they judged that a need for re-consent had been activated, participants saw the process as way of re-actualising and renewing the cooperative bargain. CONCLUSIONS: Participants' perceptions of research as a process of mutual co-operation between volunteer and researcher were fundamental to their views on consent. Consenting arrangements for biobanks should respect the cooperative values that are important to participants, recognise the two logics used by research volunteers, and avoid rigidity. Agility may be favoured by tiered consent combined with strong oversight mechanisms; this approach requires evaluation