Using clinical simulation to study how to improve quality and safety in healthcare.

Simulation can offer researchers access to events that can otherwise not be directly observed, and in a safe and controlled environment. How to use simulation for the study of how to improve the quality and safety of healthcare remains underexplored, however. We offer an overview of simulation-based research (SBR) in this context. Building on theory and examples, we show how SBR can be deployed and which study designs it may support. We discuss the challenges of simulation for healthcare improvement research and how they can be tackled. We conclude that using simulation in the study of healthcare improvement is a promising approach that could usefully complement established research methods

"New" and distributed leadership in quality and safety in healthcare, or "old" and hierarchical? : An interview study with strategic stakeholders

Peer reviewedPostprin

The friends and family test : a qualitative study of concerns that influence the willingness of English National Health Service staff to recommend their organisation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

A qualitative study of views and experiences of performance management for healthcare-associated infections

Background Centrally-led performance management regimes using standard-setting, monitoring and incentives have become a prominent feature of infection prevention and control (IPC) in health systems. Aim We aimed to characterise views and experiences of regulation and performance management relating to IPC in English hospitals. Methods We analysed two qualitative datasets containing 139 interviews with healthcare workers and managers. Data directly relevant to performance management and IPC were extracted. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Findings Participants reported that performance management regimes had mobilised action around specific infections. The benefits of establishing organisational structures of accountability were seen in empirical evidence of decreasing infection rates. Performance management was not, however, experienced as wholly benign, and setting targets in one area was seen to involve risks of ‘tunnel vision’ and the marginalisation of other potentially important issues. Financial sanctions were viewed particularly negatively; performance management was associated with risks of creating a culture of fearfulness, suppressing learning and disrupting inter-professional relationships. Conclusions Centrally-led performance management may have some important roles in infection prevention and control, but identifying where it is appropriate and determining its limits is critical. Persisting with harsh regimes may affect relationships and increase resistance to continued improvement efforts, but leaving all improvement to local teams may also be a flawed strategy

Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research makes an important contribution to our understanding of health and healthcare. However, qualitative evidence can be difficult to search for and identify, and the effectiveness of different types of search strategies is unknown. METHODS: Three search strategies for qualitative research in the example area of support for breast-feeding were evaluated using six electronic bibliographic databases. The strategies were based on using thesaurus terms, free-text terms and broad-based terms. These strategies were combined with recognised search terms for support for breast-feeding previously used in a Cochrane review. For each strategy, we evaluated the recall (potentially relevant records found) and precision (actually relevant records found). RESULTS: A total yield of 7420 potentially relevant records was retrieved by the three strategies combined. Of these, 262 were judged relevant. Using one strategy alone would miss relevant records. The broad-based strategy had the highest recall and the thesaurus strategy the highest precision. Precision was generally poor: 96% of records initially identified as potentially relevant were deemed irrelevant. Searching for qualitative research involves trade-offs between recall and precision. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that strategies that attempt to maximise the number of potentially relevant records found are likely to result in a large number of false positives. The findings also suggest that a range of search terms is required to optimise searching for qualitative evidence. This underlines the problems of current methods for indexing qualitative research in bibliographic databases and indicates where improvements need to be made

Operational failures and how they influence the work of GPs: a qualitative study in primary care.

BACKGROUND:Operational failures, defined as inadequacies or errors in the information, supplies, or equipment needed for patient care, are known to be highly consequential in hospital environments. Despite their likely relevance for GPs' experiences of work, they remain under-explored in primary care. AIM:To identify operational failures in the primary care work environment and to examine how they influence GPs' work. DESIGN AND SETTING:Qualitative interview study in the East of England. METHOD:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 21). Data analysis was based on the constant comparison method. RESULTS:GPs reported a large burden of operational failures, many of them related to information transfer with external healthcare providers, practice technology, and organisation of work within practices. Faced with operational failures, GPs undertook 'compensatory labour' to fulfil their duties of coordinating and safeguarding patients' care. Dealing with operational failures imposed significant additional strain in the context of already stretched daily schedules, but this work remained largely invisible. In part, this was because GPs acted to fix problems in the here-and-now rather than referring them to source, and they characteristically did not report operational failures at system level. They also identified challenges in making process improvements at practice level, including medicolegal uncertainties about delegation. CONCLUSION:Operational failures in primary care matter for GPs and their experience of work. Compensatory labour is burdensome with an unintended consequence of rendering these failures largely invisible. Recognition of the significance of operational failures should stimulate efforts to make the primary care work environment more attractive

Beyond metrics? Utilizing 'soft intelligence' for healthcare quality and safety.

Formal metrics for monitoring the quality and safety of healthcare have a valuable role, but may not, by themselves, yield full insight into the range of fallibilities in organizations. 'Soft intelligence' is usefully understood as the processes and behaviours associated with seeking and interpreting soft data-of the kind that evade easy capture, straightforward classification and simple quantification-to produce forms of knowledge that can provide the basis for intervention. With the aim of examining current and potential practice in relation to soft intelligence, we conducted and analysed 107 in-depth qualitative interviews with senior leaders, including managers and clinicians, involved in healthcare quality and safety in the English National Health Service. We found that participants were in little doubt about the value of softer forms of data, especially for their role in revealing troubling issues that might be obscured by conventional metrics. Their struggles lay in how to access softer data and turn them into a useful form of knowing. Some of the dominant approaches they used risked replicating the limitations of hard, quantitative data. They relied on processes of aggregation and triangulation that prioritised reliability, or on instrumental use of soft data to animate the metrics. The unpredictable, untameable, spontaneous quality of soft data could be lost in efforts to systematize their collection and interpretation to render them more tractable. A more challenging but potentially rewarding approach involved processes and behaviours aimed at disrupting taken-for-granted assumptions about quality, safety, and organizational performance. This approach, which explicitly values the seeking out and the hearing of multiple voices, is consistent with conceptual frameworks of organizational sensemaking and dialogical understandings of knowledge. Using soft intelligence this way can be challenging and discomfiting, but may offer a critical defence against the complacency that can precede crisis

A mixed-methods study of challenges experienced by clinical teams in measuring improvement.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement is an indispensable element of most quality improvement (QI) projects, but it is undertaken to variable standards. We aimed to characterise challenges faced by clinical teams in undertaking measurement in the context of a safety QI programme that encouraged local selection of measures. METHODS: Drawing on an independent evaluation of a multisite improvement programme (Safer Clinical Systems), we combined a qualitative study of participating teams' experiences and perceptions of measurement with expert review of measurement plans and analysis of data collected for the programme. Multidisciplinary teams of frontline clinicians at nine UK NHS sites took part across the two phases of the programme between 2011 and 2016. RESULTS: Developing and implementing a measurement plan against which to assess their improvement goals was an arduous task for participating sites. The operational definitions of the measures that they selected were often imprecise or missed important details. Some measures used by the teams were not logically linked to the improvement actions they implemented. Regardless of the specific type of data used (routinely collected or selected ex novo), the burdensome nature of data collection was underestimated. Problems also emerged in identifying and using suitable analytical approaches. CONCLUSION: Measurement is a highly technical task requiring a degree of expertise. Simply leveraging individual clinicians' motivation is unlikely to defeat the persistent difficulties experienced by clinical teams when attempting to measure their improvement efforts. We suggest that more structural initiatives and broader capability-building programmes should be pursued by the professional community. Improving access to, and ability to use repositories of validated measures, and increasing transparency in reporting measurement attempts, is likely to be helpful.This study was funded by the Health Foundation, charity number 286967. This work was also supported by MDW’s Wellcome Trust Investigator award WT09789. MDW is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. MDW and EL are supported by the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute. THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation – an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. TW was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) programme for North West London, and through an Improvement Science Fellowship from the Health Foundation. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Health Foundation, the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care

Senior stakeholder views on policies to foster a culture of openness in the English National Health Service: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the experiences of clinical and managerial leaders in the English healthcare system charged with implementing policy goals of openness, particularly in relation to improving employee voice. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews. SETTING: National Health Service, regulatory and third-sector organisations in England. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-one interviewees, including senior leaders in healthcare organisations (38) and policymakers and representatives of other relevant regulatory, legal and third-sector organisations (13). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: Participants recognised the limitations of treating the new policies as an exercise in procedural implementation alone and highlighted the need for additional 'cultural engineering' to engender change. However, formidable impediments included legacies of historical examples of detriment arising from speaking up, the anxiety arising from increased monitoring and the introduction of a legislative imperative and challenges in identifying areas characterised by a lack of openness and engaging with them to improve employee voice. Beyond healthcare organisations themselves, recent legal cases and examples of 'blacklisting' of whistle-blowers served to reinforce the view that giving voice to concerns was a risky endeavour. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of procedural interventions to support openness is challenging but feasible; engineering cultural change is much more daunting, given deep-rooted and pervasive assumptions about what should be said and the consequences of mis-speaking, together with ongoing ambivalences in the organisational environment about the propriety of giving voice to concerns.GPM acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands (CLAHRC EM). MDW and GPM are supported by the Health Foundation’s grant to the University of Cambridge for The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute. THIS Institute is supported by the Health Foundation—an independent charity committed to bringing about better health and health care for people in the UK. MDW is a Wellcome Trust Investigator (award WT09789) and a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care

Learning from high risk industries may not be straightforward: a qualitative study of the hierarchy of risk controls approach in healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: Though healthcare is often exhorted to learn from 'high-reliability' industries, adopting tools and techniques from those sectors may not be straightforward. We sought to examine the hierarchies of risk controls approach, used in high-risk industries to rank interventions according to supposed effectiveness in reducing risk, and widely advocated as appropriate for healthcare. DESIGN: Classification of risk controls proposed by clinical teams following proactive detection of hazards in their clinical systems. Classification was based on a widely used hierarchy of controls developed by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A range of clinical settings in four English NHS hospitals. RESULTS: The four clinical teams in our study planned a total of 42 risk controls aimed at addressing safety hazards. Most (n = 35) could be classed as administrative controls, thus qualifying among the weakest type of interventions according to the HoC approach. Six risk controls qualified as 'engineering' controls, i.e. the intermediate level of the hierarchy. Only risk control qualified as 'substitution', classified as the strongest type of intervention by the HoC. CONCLUSIONS: Many risk controls introduced by clinical teams may cluster towards the apparently weaker end of an established hierarchy of controls. Less clear is whether the HoC approach as currently formulated is useful for the specifics of healthcare. Valuable opportunities for safety improvement may be lost if inappropriate hierarchical models are used to guide the selection of patient safety improvement interventions. Though learning from other industries may be useful, caution is needed