Innovation sustainability in challenging health-care contexts : embedding clinically led change in routine practice

The need for organizational innovation as a means of improving health-care quality and containing costs is widely recognized, but while a growing body of research has improved knowledge of implementation, very little has considered the challenges involved in sustaining change – especially organizational change led ‘bottom-up’ by frontline clinicians. This study addresses this lacuna, taking a longitudinal, qualitative case-study approach to understanding the paths to sustainability of four organizational innovations. It highlights the importance of the interaction between organizational context, nature of the innovation and strategies deployed in achieving sustainability. It discusses how positional influence of service leads, complexity of innovation, networks of support, embedding in existing systems, and proactive responses to changing circumstances can interact to sustain change. In the absence of cast-iron evidence of effectiveness, wider notions of value may be successfully invoked to sustain innovation. Sustainability requires continuing effort through time, rather than representing a final state to be achieved. Our study offers new insights into the process of sustainability of organizational change, and elucidates the complement of strategies needed to make bottom-up change last in challenging contexts replete with competing priorities

Bringing genetics into primary care: findings from a national evaluation of pilots in England

Objectives: Developments in genetic knowledge and clinical applications are seen as rendering traditional modes of organizing genetics provision increasingly inappropriate. In common with a number of developed world countries the UK has sought to increase the role of primary care in delivering such services. However, efforts to reconfigure service delivery face multiple challenges associated with divergent policy objectives, organizational boundaries and professional cultures. This paper presents findings from an evaluation of an English initiative to integrate genetics into 'mainstream' clinical provision in the National Health Service. Methods: Qualitative research in 11 case-study sites focusing on attempts by pilots funded by the initiative to embed knowledge and provision within primary care illustrating barriers faced and the ways in which these were surmounted. Results: Lack of intrinsic interest in clinical genetics among primary care staff was compounded by national targets that focused their attention elsewhere and by service structures that rendered genetics a peripheral concern demanding minimal engagement. Established divisions between the commissioning of mainstream and specialist services, along with the pressures of shorter-term targets, impeded ongoing funding. Conclusions: More wide-ranging policy and organizational support is required if the aim of entrenching genetics knowledge and practice across the Health Service is to be realized

Patient and public involvement facilitators: Could they be the key to the NHS quality improvement agenda?

Objective Research into patient and public involvement (PPI) has not examined in detail patient and public involvement facilitators’ (PPIFs) roles and activities. This study analysed PPIFs’ roles using qualitative data gathered from three different UK health‐care organizations. Design Thematic analysis was used to examine cross‐sectional data collected using a mixed‐methods approach from three organizations: a mental health trust, a community health social enterprise and an acute hospital trust. The data set comprised of 27 interviews and 48 observations. Findings Patient and public involvement facilitators roles included the leadership and management of PPI interventions, developing health‐care practices and influencing quality improvements (QI). They usually occupied middle‐management grades but their PPIF role involved working in isolation or in small teams. They reported facilitating the development and maintenance of relationships between patients and the public, and health‐care professionals and service managers. These roles sometimes required them to use conflict resolution skills and involved considerable emotional labour. Integrating information from PPI into service improvement processes was reported to be a challenge for these individuals. Conclusions Patient and public involvement facilitators capture and hold information that can be used in service improvement. However, they work with limited resources and support. Health‐care organizations need to offer more practical support to PPIFs in their efforts to improve care quality, particularly by making their role integral to developing QI strategies

Monitoring patient safety in primary care: an exploratory study using in-depth semistructured interviews

Objectives To explore how information and data are used to monitor patient safety and quality of primary care by professionals working in, or supporting, primary healthcare. Design Qualitative study of semistructured interviews with a directed content analysis of transcripts. Setting North-West London, UK. Participants 21 individuals from various levels of the primary healthcare system were recruited, including general practitioners, practice nurses, practice managers, members of Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) governing bodies, and senior members of regional patient safety teams. Results Participants described being overwhelmed with complicated data which lacked any meaningful analyses about safety and quality. There was also a lack of clarity over which patient safety events are expected to be reported or monitored. Participants also reported uncertainty on whose responsibility it was to act on patient safety information or concerns. At the practice level, there was a range of disincentives for responding to and acting on safety issues and concerns, with few reported benefits. Participants made recommendations to improve future monitoring. Conclusions There is a need for clearer information in the form of specific guidelines, policies and procedures with regard to who monitors patient safety in primary care, what is monitored and how it should be monitored

Blaming the victim, all over again: Waddell and Aylward's biopsychosocial (BPS) model of disability

The biopsychosocial (BPS) model of mental distress, originally conceived by the American psychiatrist George Engel in the 1970s and commonly used in psychiatry and psychology, has been adapted by Gordon Waddell and Mansell Aylward to form the theoretical basis for current UK Government thinking on disability. Most importantly, the Waddell and Aylward version of the BPS has played a key role as the Government has sought to reform spending on out-of- work disability benefits. This paper presents a critique of Waddell and Aylward’s model, examining its origins, its claims and the evidence it employs. We will argue that its potential for genuine inter-disciplinary cooperation and the holistic and humanistic benefits for disabled people as envisaged by Engel are not now, if they ever have been, fully realized. Any potential benefit it may have offered has been eclipsed by its role in Coalition/Conservative government social welfare policies that have blamed the victim and justified restriction of entitlements

Improving health and well-being through community health champions: a thematic evaluation of a programme in Yorkshire and Humber.

AIMS: The contribution that lay people can make to the public health agenda is being increasingly recognised in research and policy literature. This paper examines the role of lay workers (referred to as 'community health champions') involved in community projects delivered by Altogether Better across Yorkshire and Humber. The aim of the paper is to describe key features of the community health champion approach and to examine the evidence that this type of intervention can have an impact on health. METHODS: A qualitative approach was taken to the evaluation, with two strands to gathering evidence: interviews conducted with different stakeholder groups including project leads, key partners from community and statutory sectors and community workers, plus two participatory workshops to gather the views of community health champions. Seven projects (from a possible 12) were identified to be involved in the evaluation. Those projects that allowed the evaluation team to explore fully the champion role (training, infrastructure, etc.) and how that works in practice as a mechanism for empowerment were selected. In total, 29 semi-structured interviews were conducted with project staff and partners, and 30 champions, varying in terms of age, gender, ethnicity and disability, took part in the workshops. RESULTS: Becoming a community health champion has health benefits such as increased self-esteem and confidence and improved well-being. For some champions, this was the start of a journey to other opportunities such as education or paid employment. There were many examples of the influence of champions extending to the wider community of family, friends and neighbours, including helping to support people to take part in community life. Champions recognised the value of connecting people through social networks, group activities, and linking people into services and the impact that that had on health and well-being. Project staff and partners also recognised that champions were promoting social cohesiveness and helping to integrate people into their community. CONCLUSIONS: The recent public health White Paper suggested that the Altogether Better programme is improving individual and community health as well as increasing social capital, voluntary activity and wider civic participation. This evaluation supports this statement and suggests that the community health champion role can be a catalyst for change for both individuals and communities

How Personality Became Treatable:The Mutual Constitution of Clinical Knowledge and Mental Health Law

In recent years, personality disorders – psychiatric constructs understood as enduring dysfunctions of personality – have come into ever-greater focus for British policymakers, mental health professionals and service-users. Disputes have focussed largely on highly controversial attempts by the UK Department of Health to introduce mental health law and policy (now enshrined within the 2007 Mental Health Act of England and Wales). At the same time, clinical framings of personality disorder have dramatically shifted: once regarded as untreatable conditions, severe personality disorders are today thought of by many clinicians to be responsive to psychiatric and psychological intervention. In this article, I chart this transformation by means of a diachronic analysis of debates and institutional shifts pertaining to both attempts to change the law, and understandings of personality disorder. In so doing, I show how mental health policy and practice have mutually constituted one another, such that the aims of clinicians and policymakers have come to be closely aligned. I argue that it is precisely through these reciprocally constitutive processes that the profound reconfiguration of personality disorder from being an obdurate to a plastic condition has occurred; this demonstrates the significance of interactions between law and the health professions in shaping not only the State’s management of pathology, but also perceptions of its very nature