Systems Approach to daily clinical care

AbstractSafety and quality of healthcare provision are affected by a number of factors. These factors include the clinical skills of the treating surgeon or other physician, but also the way practitioners think and behave as members of a healthcare team, and the clinical environment in which care is provided. We first discuss Bahal et al.’s paper as a demonstration of the Systems Approach to clinical performance and patient safety. We then highlight recent advances driven by the Systems Approach in understanding and measuring clinical decision-making, teamworking, and the clinical environment. We conclude that human factors research can provide an understanding of how to balance conflicting opinions and priorities in clinical care with the best interests of the patient, in a manner which allows each doctor to fulfil their duty of care

Implementation outcome assessment instruments used in physical healthcare settings and their measurement properties:a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION: Over the past 10 years, research into methods that promote the uptake, implementation and sustainability of evidence-based interventions has gathered pace. However, implementation outcomes are defined in different ways and assessed by different measures; the extent to which these measures are valid and reliable is unknown. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and appraise studies that assess the measurement properties of quantitative implementation outcome instruments used in physical healthcare settings, to advance the use of precise and accurate measures.  METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The following databases will be searched from inception to March 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature will be sought via HMIC, OpenGrey, ProQuest for theses and Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews will be hand searched. Three search strings will be combined to identify eligible studies: (1) implementation literature, (2) implementation outcomes and (3) measurement properties. Screening of titles, abstracts and full papers will be assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently and any discrepancies resolved via consensus with the wider team. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. A set of bespoke criteria to determine the quality of the instruments will be used, and the relationship between instrument usability and quality will be explored.  ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not necessary for systematic review protocols. Researchers and healthcare professionals can use the findings of this systematic review to guide the selection of implementation outcomes instruments, based on their psychometric quality, to assess the impact of their implementation efforts. The findings will also provide a useful guide for reviewers of papers and grants to determine the psychometric quality of the measures used in implementation research.  TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017065348

Driving sustainable change in antimicrobial prescribing practice:how can social and behavioural sciences help?

Addressing the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance is, in part, reliant on the complex challenge of changing human behaviour—in terms of reducing inappropriate antibiotic use and preventing infection. Whilst there is no ‘one size fits all’ recommended behavioural solution for improving antimicrobial stewardship, the behavioural and social sciences offer a range of theories, frameworks, methods and evidence-based principles that can help inform the design of behaviour change interventions that are context-specific and thus more likely to be effective. However, the state-of-the-art in antimicrobial stewardship research and practice suggests that behavioural and social influences are often not given due consideration in the design and evaluation of interventions to improve antimicrobial prescribing. In this paper, we discuss four potential areas where the behavioural and social sciences can help drive more effective and sustained behaviour change in antimicrobial stewardship: (i) defining the problem in behavioural terms and understanding current behaviour in context; (ii) adopting a theory-driven, systematic approach to intervention design; (iii) investigating implementation and sustainability of interventions in practice; and (iv) maximizing learning through evidence synthesis and detailed intervention reporting

Development and implementation of a national quality improvement skills curriculum for urology residents in the United Kingdom: A prospective multi-method, multi-center study

Background: Surgical quality improvement (QI) is a global priority. We report the design and proof-of concept testing of a QI skills curriculum for urology residents. Methods: ‘Umbrella review’ of QI curricula (Phase-1); development of draft QI curriculum (Phase-2); curriculum review by Steering Committee of urologists (Attendings & Residents), QI and medical education experts and patients (Phase-3); proof-of-concept testing (Phase-4). Results: Phase-1: Six systematic reviews were identified of 4,332 search hits. Most curricula are developed/evaluated in the USA; use mixed teaching methods (incl. didactic, QI exercises & self-reflection); and introduce core QI techniques (e.g., Plan-Do-Study-Act). Phase-2: curriculum drafted. Phase-3: the curriculum was judged to represent state-of-the-art, relevant QI training. Stronger patient involvement element was incorporated. Phase-4: the curriculum was delivered to 43 urology residents. The delivery was feasible; the curriculum implementable; and a knowledge-skills-attitudes evaluation approach successful. Conclusion: We have developed a practical QI curriculum, for further evaluation and national implementation

Aviation and healthcare: a comparative review with implications for patient safety

Safety in aviation has often been compared with safety in healthcare. Following a recent article in this journal, the UK government set up an Independent Patient Safety Investigation Service, to emulate a similar well-established body in aviation. On the basis of a detailed review of relevant publications that examine patient safety in the context of aviation practice, we have drawn up a table of comparative features and a conceptual framework for patient safety. Convergence and divergence of safety-related behaviours across aviation and healthcare were derived and documented. Key safety-related domains that emerged included Checklists, Training, Crew Resource Management, Sterile Cockpit, Investigation and Reporting of Incidents and Organisational Culture. We conclude that whilst healthcare has much to learn from aviation in certain key domains, the transfer of lessons from aviation to healthcare needs to be nuanced, with the specific characteristics and needs of healthcare borne in mind. On the basis of this review, it is recommended that healthcare should emulate aviation in its resourcing of staff who specialise in human factors and related psychological aspects of patient safety and staff wellbeing. Professional and post-qualification staff training could specifically include Cognitive Bias Avoidance Training, as this appears to play a key part in many errors relating to patient safety and staff wellbeing

The Role of Patient Identification in Patient Safety

Matching the right patient with the right care is at the heart of safe healthcare. Patient wristbands form a vital link between the patient, local information systems, care delivery and the wider healthcare system. At present there is no standardisation across the NHS for wristband design. Colour coded wristbands have been introduced by some organisations as a barrier to patient safety incidents but there is disparity in the coding systems used between, and sometimes within, healthcare settings. This paper presents some of the human factors issues surrounding patient identification, a survey of current practice across the NHS in England and Wales and steps towards standardisation of wristbands

Implementation science: a reappraisal of our journal mission and scope.

The implementation of research findings into healthcare practice has become increasingly recognised as a major priority for researchers, service providers, research funders and policymakers over the past decade. Nine years after its establishment, Implementation Science, an international online open access journal, currently publishes over 150 articles each year. This is fewer than 30% of those submitted for publication. The majority of manuscript rejections occur at the point of initial editorial screening, frequently because we judge them to fall outside of journal scope. There are a number of common reasons as to why manuscripts are rejected on grounds of scope. Furthermore, as the field of implementation research has evolved and our journal submissions have risen, we have, out of necessity, had to become more selective in what we publish. We have also expanded our scope, particularly around patient-mediated and population health interventions, and will monitor the impact of such changes. We hope this editorial on our evolving priorities and common reasons for rejection without peer review will help authors to better judge the relevance of their papers to Implementation Science

An Integrated Literature Review of Time-on-Task Effects With a Pragmatic Framework for Understanding and Improving Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Oncology Team Meetings

Multidisciplinary oncology team meetings (MDMs) or tumor boards, like other MDMs in healthcare, facilitate the incorporation of diverse clinical expertise into treatment planning for patients. Decision-making (DM) in relation to treatment planning in MDMs is carried out repeatedly until all patients put forward for discussion have been reviewed. Despite continuing financial pressure and staff shortages, the workload of cancer MDMs, and therefore meeting duration continue to increase (up to 5 h) with patients often receiving less than 2 min of team input. This begs the question as to whether the current set-up is conducive to achieve optimal DM, which these multi-specialty teams were set out to achieve in the first place. Much of what it is known, however, about the effects of prolonged cognitive activity comes from various subfields of science, leaving a gap in applied knowledge relating to complex healthcare environments. The objective of this review was thus to synthesize theory, evidence and clinical practice in order to bring the current understanding of prolonged, repeated DM into the context of cancer MDMs. We explore how and why time spent on a task affects performance in such settings, and what strategies can be employed by cancer teams to counteract negative effects and improve quality and safety. In the process, we propose a pragmatic framework of repeated DM that encompasses the strength, the process and the cost-benefit models of self-control as applied to real-world contexts of cancer MDMs. We also highlight promising research avenues for closing the research-to-practice gap. Theoretical and empirical evidence reviewed in this paper suggests that over prolonged time spent on a task, repeated DM is cognitively taxing, leading to performance detriments. This deterioration is associated with various cognitive-behavioral pitfalls, including decreased attentional capacity and reduced ability to effectively evaluate choices, as well as less analytical DM and increased reliance on heuristics. As a short to medium term improvement for ensuring safety, consistently high quality of care for all patients, and the clinician wellbeing, future research and interventions in cancer MDMs should address time-on-task effects with a combination of evidence-based cognitive strategies. We propose in this review multiple measures that range from food intake, short breaks, rewards, and mental exercises. As a long term imperative, however, capacity within cancer services needs to be reviewed as well as how best to plan workforce development and service delivery models to achieve population coverage whilst maintaining safety and quality of care. Hence the performance detriments that arise in healthcare workers as a result of the intensity (time spent on a task) and complexity of the workload require not only more research, but also wider regulatory focus and recognition

Pilot implementation and evaluation of a national quality improvement taught curriculum for urology residents: Lessons from the United Kingdom

Background : We report the immediate educational impact of a previously developed quality improvement (QI) curriculum for UK urology residents. Materials and methods : Prospective pre/post-training evaluation, using the Kirkpatrick framework: residents’ QI knowledge, skills and attitudes were assessed via standardized assessments. We report descriptive/inferential statistics and scales psychometric analyses. Results : Ninety-eight residents from across the UK provided full datasets. Scale reliability was good (Cronbach-alphas = 0.485–0.924). Residents' subjective knowledge (Mpre = 2.71, SD = 0.787; Mpost = 3.97, SD = 0.546); intentions to initiate QI (Mpre = 3.65, SD = 0.643; Mpost = 4.09, SD = 0.642); attitudes towards doing QI (Mpre = 3.67, SD = 0.646; Mpost = 4.11, SD = 0.591); attitudes towards QI at work (Mpre = 3.80, SD = 0.511; Mpost = 4.00, SD = 0.495); and attitudes towards influencing QI (Mpre = 3.65, SD = 0.482; Mpost = 3.867, SD = 0.473) all improved post-training (all ps  0.05). Residents’ satisfaction was high. Conclusions : Our novel QI training is educationally sound and feasible to deliver. Longitudinal evaluation and scalability are planned

Use of health economic evaluation in the implementation and improvement science fields – A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation can inform whether strategies designed to improve the quality of health care delivery and the uptake of evidence-based practices represent a cost-effective use of limited resources. We report a systematic review and critical appraisal of the application of health economic methods in improvement/implementation research. METHOD: A systematic literature search identified 1668 papers across the Agris, Embase, Global Health, HMIC, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, MEDLINE and EconLit databases between 2004 and 2016. Abstracts were screened in Rayyan database, and key data extracted into Microsoft Excel. Evidence was critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) framework. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included-all health economic studies that included implementation or improvement as a part of the evaluation. Studies were conducted mostly in Europe (62%) or North America (23%) and were largely hospital-based (70%). The field was split between improvement (N = 16) and implementation (N = 14) studies. The most common intervention evaluated (43%) was staffing reconfiguration, specifically changing from physician-led to nurse-led care delivery. Most studies (N = 19) were ex-post economic evaluations carried out empirically-of those, 17 were cost effectiveness analyses. We found four cost utility analyses that used economic modelling rather than empirical methods. Two cost-consequence analyses were also found. Specific implementation costs considered included costs associated with staff training in new care delivery pathways, the impacts of new processes on patient and carer costs and the costs of developing new care processes/pathways. Over half (55%) of the included studies were rated 'good' on QHES. Study quality was boosted through inclusion of appropriate comparators and reporting of incremental analysis (where relevant); and diminished through use of post-hoc subgroup analysis, limited reporting of the handling of uncertainty and justification for choice of discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: The quantity of published economic evaluations applied to the field of improvement and implementation research remains modest; however, quality is overall good. Implementation and improvement scientists should work closely with health economists to consider costs associated with improvement interventions and their associated implementation strategies. We offer a set of concrete recommendations to facilitate this endeavour