A Patient-Centered Framework for Evaluating Digital Maturity of Health Services: A Systematic Review

© Kelsey Flott, Ryan Callahan, Ara Darzi, Erik Mayer.Background: Digital maturity is the extent to which digital technologies are used as enablers to deliver a high-quality health service. Extensive literature exists about how to assess the components of digital maturity, but it has not been used to design a comprehensive framework for evaluation. Consequently, the measurement systems that do exist are limited to evaluating digital programs within one service or care setting, meaning that digital maturity evaluation is not accounting for the needs of patients across their care pathways. Objective: The objective of our study was to identify the best methods and metrics for evaluating digital maturity and to create a novel, evidence-based tool for evaluating digital maturity across patient care pathways. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature to find the best methods and metrics for evaluating digital maturity. We searched the PubMed database for all papers relevant to digital maturity evaluation. Papers were selected if they provided insight into how to appraise digital systems within the health service and if they indicated the factors that constitute or facilitate digital maturity. Papers were analyzed to identify methodology for evaluating digital maturity and indicators of digitally mature systems. We then used the resulting information about methodology to design an evaluation framework. Following that, the indicators of digital maturity were extracted and grouped into increasing levels of maturity and operationalized as metrics within the evaluation framework. Results: We identified 28 papers as relevant to evaluating digital maturity, from which we derived 5 themes. The first theme concerned general evaluation methodology for constructing the framework (7 papers). The following 4 themes were the increasing levels of digital maturity: resources and ability (6 papers), usage (7 papers), interoperability (3 papers), and impact (5 papers). The framework includes metrics for each of these levels at each stage of the typical patient care pathway. Conclusions: The framework uses a patient-centric model that departs from traditional service-specific measurements and allows for novel insights into how digital programs benefit patients across the health system

Can Standing Long Jump Distance Be Predicted From Between-the-Legs Front Throw Distance?

Please view abstract in the attached PDF file

National Reporting and Learning System Research and Development

This report presents the findings of the NRLS Research and Development Programme conducted by the Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (PSTRC) and the Centre for Health Policy (CHP) at Imperial College London. It sets out the current state of affairs regarding patient safety incident reporting in the NHS, and specifies where the most pressing areas of concerns are, including thorough descriptions of the various incident reporting systems used in the NHS today. Furthermore it identifies areas for improvement in the overall landscape of incident reporting, and suggests how systems like the NRLS can capitalise on developments in technology. The main body of the report is then devoted to explaining the findings from the research programme. The research was divided into four domains, and the report details the new findings discovered about each of them: 1. Purpose of incident reporting in healthcare 2. User experience with reporting systems 3. Data quality and analysis 4. Effective feedback for learning Building on these findings, the report moves on to describe how they can be applied to the next generation of incident reporting. Specifically, it focuses on a prototype for a new incident reporting system that incorporates the improvement ideas generated by the research. Finally, the report concludes with a description of an evidence-based framework for evaluating incident reporting systems and an ‘Achievement Toolkit’ of ten recommendations for improvements to incident reporting systems

Can self-management programmes change healthcare utilisation in COPD?: A systematic review and framework analysis

Objective The study aims to evaluate the ability of self-management programmes to change the healthcare-seeking behaviours of people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and any associations between programme design and outcomes. Methods A systematic search of the literature returned randomised controlled trials of SMPs for COPD. Change in healthcare utilisation was the primary outcome measure. Programme design was analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results A total of 26 papers described 19 SMPs. The most common utilisation outcome was hospitalisation (n = 22). Of these, 5 showed a significant decrease. Two theoretical domains were evidenced in all programmes: skills and behavioural regulation. All programmes evidenced at least 5 domains. However, there was no clear association between TDF domains and utilisation. Overall, study quality was moderate to poor. Conclusion This review highlights the need for more alignment in the goals, design, and evaluation of SMPs. Specifically, the TDF could be used to guide programme design and evaluation in future. Practice implications Practices have a reasonable expectation that interventions they adopt will provide patient benefit and value for money. Better design and reporting of SMP trials would address their ability to do so

Identifying factors that promote and limit the effective use of real-time patient experience feedback: a mixed-methods study in secondary care

Objectives: The Friends and Family Test (FFT) is commissioned by the National Health Service (NHS) in England to capture patient experience as a real-time feedback initiative for patient-centred quality improvement (QI). The aim of this study was to create a process map in order to identify the factors that promote and limit the effective use of FFT as a real-time feedback initiative for patient-centred QI. Setting: This study was conducted at a large London NHS Trust. Services include accident and emergency, inpatient, outpatient and maternity, which routinely collect FFT patient experience data. Participants: Healthcare staff and key stakeholders involved in FFT. Interventions: Semi-structured interviews were conducted on fifteen participants from a broad range of professional groups to evaluate their engagement with the FFT. Interview data were recorded, transcribed, and analysed for using deductive thematic analysis. Results: Concerns related to inefficiency in the flow of FFT data, lack of time to analyse FFT reports (with emphasis on high level reporting rather than QI), insufficient access to FFT reports and limited training provided to understand FFT reports for frontline staff. The sheer volume of data received was not amenable to manual thematic analysis resulting in inability to acquire insight from the free-text. This resulted in staff ambivalence towards FFT as a near real-time feedback initiative. Conclusions: The results state that there is too much FFT free text for meaningful analysis, and the output is limited to the provision of sufficient capacity and resource to analyse the data, without consideration of other options, such as text analytics and amending the data collection tool

The self-management abilities test (SMAT): a tool to identify the self-management abilities of adults with bronchiectasis

AbstractBronchiectasis is an increasingly common chronic respiratory disease which requires a high level of patient engagement in self-management. Whilst the need for self-management has been recognised, the knowledge and skills needed to do so— and the extent to which patients possess these—has not been well-specified. On one hand, understanding the gaps in people’s knowledge and skills can enable better targeting of self-management supports. On the other, clarity about what they do know can increase patients’ confidence to self-manage. This study aims to develop an assessment of patients’ ability to self-manage effectively, through a consensus-building process with patients, clinicians and policymakers. The study employs a modified, online three-round Delphi to solicit the opinions of patients, clinicians, and policymakers (N = 30) with experience of bronchiectasis. The first round seeks consensus on the content domains for an assessment of bronchiectasis self-management ability. Subsequent rounds propose and refine multiple-choice assessment items to address the agreed domains. A group of ten clinicians, ten patients and ten policymakers provide both qualitative and quantitative feedback. Consensus is determined using content validity ratios. Qualitative feedback is analysed using the summative content analysis method. Overarching domains are General Health Knowledge, Bronchiectasis-Specific Knowledge, Symptom Management, Communication, and Addressing Deterioration, each with two sub-domains. A final assessment tool of 20 items contains two items addressing each sub-domain. This study establishes that there is broad consensus about the knowledge and skills required to self-manage bronchiectasis effectively, across stakeholder groups. The output of the study is an assessment tool that can be used by patients and their healthcare providers to guide the provision of self-management education, opportunities, and support.</jats:p

Assessment of patients' ability to review electronic health record information to identify potential errors: cross-sectional web-based survey

Background: Sharing personal health information positively impacts quality of care across several domains, and particularly, safety and patient-centeredness. Patients may identify and flag up inconsistencies in their electronic health records (EHRs), leading to improved information quality and patient safety. However, in order to identify potential errors, patients need to be able to understand the information contained in their EHRs. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess patients’ perceptions of their ability to understand the information contained in their EHRs and to analyze the main barriers to their understanding. Additionally, the main types of patient-reported errors were characterized. Methods: A cross-sectional web-based survey was undertaken between March 2017 and September 2017. A total of 682 registered users of the Care Information Exchange, a patient portal, with at least one access during the time of the study were invited to complete the survey containing both structured (multiple choice) and unstructured (free text) questions. The survey contained questions on patients’ perceived ability to understand their EHR information and therefore, to identify errors. Free-text questions allowed respondents to expand on the reasoning for their structured responses and provide more detail about their perceptions of EHRs and identifying errors within them. Qualitative data were systematically reviewed by 2 independent researchers using the framework analysis method in order to identify emerging themes. Results: A total of 210 responses were obtained. The majority of the responses (123/210, 58.6%) reported understanding of the information. The main barriers identified were information-related (medical terminology and knowledge and interpretation of test results) and technology-related (user-friendliness of the portal, information display). Inconsistencies relating to incomplete and incorrect information were reported in 12.4% (26/210) of the responses. Conclusions: While the majority of the responses affirmed the understanding of the information contained within the EHRs, both technology and information-based barriers persist. There is a potential to improve the system design to better support opportunities for patients to identify errors. This is with the aim of improving the accuracy, quality, and timeliness of the information held in the EHRs and a mechanism to further engage patients in their health care

Use and impact of virtual primary care on quality and safety: The public's perspectives during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction With the onset of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), primary care has swiftly transitioned from face-to-face to virtual care, yet it remains largely unknown how this has impacted the quality and safety of care. We aim to evaluate patient use of virtual primary care models during COVID-19, including change in uptake, perceived impact on the quality and safety of care and willingness of future use. Methodology An online cross-sectional survey was administered to the public across the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Germany. McNemar tests were conducted to test pre- and post-pandemic differences in uptake for each technology. One-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine patient experience ratings and perceived impacts on healthcare quality and safety across demographic characteristics. Results Respondents (n = 6326) reported an increased use of telephone consultations ( + 6.3%, p < .001), patient-initiated services ( + 1.5%, n = 98, p < 0.001), video consultations ( + 1.4%, p < .001), remote triage ( + 1.3, p < 0.001) and secure messaging systems ( + 0.9%, p = .019). Experience rates using virtual care technologies were higher for men (2.4  ±  1.0 vs. 2.3  ±  0.9, p < .001), those with higher literacy (2.8  ±  1.0 vs. 2.3  ±  0.9, p < .001), and participants from Germany (2.5  ±  0.9, p < .001). Healthcare timeliness and efficiency were the dimensions most often reported as being positively impacted by virtual technologies (60.2%, n = 2793 and 55.7%, n = 2,401, respectively), followed by effectiveness (46.5%, n = 1802), safety (45.5%, n = 1822), patient-centredness (45.2%, n = 45.2) and equity (42.9%, n = 1726). Interest in future use was highest for telephone consultations (55.9%), patient-initiated digital services (56.1%), secure messaging systems (43.4%), online triage (35.1%), video consultations (37.0%) and chat consultations (30.1%), although significant variation was observed between countries and patient characteristics. Discussion Future work must examine the drivers and determinants of positive experiences using remote care to co-create a supportive environment that ensures equitable adoption and use. Comparative analysis between countries and health systems offers the opportunity for policymakers to learn from best practices internationally

ATAD5 promotes replication restart by regulating RAD51 and PCNA in response to replication stress

Maintaining stability of replication forks is important for genomic integrity. However, it is not clear how replisome proteins contribute to fork stability under replication stress. Here, we report that ATAD5, a PCNA unloader, plays multiple functions at stalled forks including promoting its restart. ATAD5 depletion increases genomic instability upon hydroxyurea treatment in cultured cells and mice. ATAD5 recruits RAD51 to stalled forks in an ATR kinase-dependent manner by hydroxyurea-enhanced protein-protein interactions and timely removes PCNA from stalled forks for RAD51 recruitment. Consistent with the role of RAD51 in fork regression, ATAD5 depletion inhibits slowdown of fork progression and native 5-bromo-2??-deoxyuridine signal induced by hydroxyurea. Single-molecule FRET showed that PCNA itself acts as a mechanical barrier to fork regression. Consequently, DNA breaks required for fork restart are reduced by ATAD5 depletion. Collectively, our results suggest an important role of ATAD5 in maintaining genome integrity during replication stress