How do pregnancy and birth experiences influence planned place of birth in future pregnancies? Findings from a longitudinal, narrative study.

A perception that first birth is more risky than subsequent births has led to women planning births in Obstetric Units, and care providers supporting these choices. This study explored the influence of pregnancy and birth experiences on women’s intended place of birth in current and subsequent pregnancies. Methods: Prospective, longitudinal narrative interviews (n=122) with forty-one women in three English NHS sites. During postnatal interviews, women reflected on their recent births and discussed where they might plan to give birth in a future pregnancy. Longitudinal narrative analysis methods were used to explore these data. Results: Women’s experience of care in their eventual place of birth had more influence upon decisions about the (hypothetical) next pregnancy than planned place of birth during pregnancy did. Women with complex pregnancies usually planned hospital Obstetric Unit (OU) births, but healthy women with straightforward pregnancies also chose OU and would often plan the same for the future, particularly if they experienced OU during recent births. Discussion: The experience of giving birth in a hospital OU reinforced the notion that birth is risky and uncertain, and that hospital OU is the best or safest setting for birth. The assumption that women will opt for lower acuity settings for second or subsequent births was not supported by these data, which may mean that multiparous women who best fit criteria for non-OU births are reluctant to plan births in these settings. This highlights the importance of providing balanced information about risks and benefits of different birth settings to all women during pregnancy

Factors that Influence the Way Communities Respond to Proposals for Major Changes to Local Emergency Services: A Qualitative Study

According to policy commentators, decisions about how best to organise care involve trade-offs between factors relating to care quality, workforce, cost, and patient access. In England, proposed changes such as Emergency Department closures often face public opposition. This study examined the way communities respond to plans aimed at reorganising emergency services, including the trade-offs inherent in such decisions

Building capacity to use and undertake research in health organisations: a survey of training needs and priorities among staff

OBJECTIVES: Efforts to improve healthcare and population health depend partly on the ability of health organisations to use research knowledge and participate in its production. We report the findings of a survey conducted to prioritise training needs among healthcare and public health staff, in relation to the production and implementation of research, across an applied health research collaboration. DESIGN: A questionnaire survey using a validated tool, the Hennessy-Hicks Training Needs Assessment Questionnaire. Participants rated 25 tasks on a five-point scale with regard to both their confidence in performing the task, and its importance to their role. SETTING: A questionnaire weblink was distributed to a convenience sample of 35 healthcare and public health organisations in London and South East England, with a request that they cascade the information to relevant staff. PARTICIPANTS: 203 individuals responded, from 20 healthcare and public health organisations. INTERVENTIONS: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Training needs were identified by comparing median importance and performance scores for each task. Individuals were also invited to describe up to three priority areas in which they require training. RESULTS: Across the study sample, evaluation; teaching; making do with limited resources; coping with change and managing competing demands were identified as key tasks. Assessing the relevance of research and learning about new developments were the most relevant research-related tasks. Participants’ training priorities included evaluation; finding, appraising and applying research evidence; and data analysis. Key barriers to involvement included time and resources, as well as a lack of institutional support for undertaking research. CONCLUSIONS: We identify areas in which healthcare and public health professionals may benefit from support to facilitate their involvement in and use of applied health research. We also describe barriers to participation and differing perceptions of research between professional groups

A systematic literature review of operational research methods for modelling patient flow and outcomes within community healthcare and other settings

An ambition of healthcare policy has been to move more acute services into community settings. This systematic literature review presents analysis of published operational research methods for modelling patient flow within community healthcare, and for modelling the combination of patient flow and outcomes in all settings. Assessed for inclusion at three levels – with the references from included papers also assessed – 25 “Patient flow within community care”, 23 “Patient flow and outcomes” papers and 5 papers within the intersection are included for review. Comparisons are made between each paper’s setting, definition of states, factors considered to influence flow, output measures and implementation of results. Common complexities and characteristics of community service models are discussed with directions for future work suggested. We found that in developing patient flow models for community services that use outcomes, transplant waiting list may have transferable benefits

The use of patient feedback by hospital boards of directors: a qualitative study of two NHS hospitals in England

BACKGROUND: Although previous research suggests that different kinds of patient feedback are used in different ways to help improve the quality of hospital care, there have been no studies of the ways in which hospital boards of directors use feedback for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether and how boards of directors of hospitals use feedback from patients to formulate strategy and to assure and improve the quality of care. METHODS: We undertook an in-depth qualitative study in two acute hospital National Health Service foundation trusts in England, purposively selected as contrasting examples of the collection of different kinds of patient feedback. We collected and analysed data from interviews with directors and other managers, from observation of board meetings, and from board papers and other documents. RESULTS: The two boards used in-depth qualitative feedback and quantitative feedback from surveys in different ways to help develop strategies, set targets for quality improvement and design specific quality improvement initiatives; but both boards made less subsequent use of any kinds of feedback to monitor their strategies or explicitly to assure the quality of services. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: We have identified limitations in the uses of patient feedback by hospital boards that suggest that boards should review their current practice to ensure that they use the different kinds of patient feedback that are available to them more effectively to improve, monitor and assure the quality of care

How organisations contribute to improving the quality of healthcare

Naomi Fulop and Angus Ramsay argue that we should focus more on how organisations and organisational leaders can contribute to improving the quality of healthcare

Ethnographic research as an evolving method for supporting healthcare improvement skills: a scoping review

Background: The relationship between ethnography and healthcare improvement has been the subject of methodological concern. We conducted a scoping review of ethnographic literature on healthcare improvement topics, with two aims: (1) to describe current ethnographic methods and practices in healthcare improvement research and (2) to consider how these may affect habit and skill formation in the service of healthcare improvement. Methods: We used a scoping review methodology drawing on Arksey and O’Malley’s methods and more recent guidance. We systematically searched electronic databases including Medline, PsychINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL for papers published between April 2013 – April 2018, with an update in September 2019. Information about study aims, methodology and recommendations for improvement were extracted. We used a theoretical framework outlining the habits and skills required for healthcare improvement to consider how ethnographic research may foster improvement skills. Results: We included 283 studies covering a wide range of healthcare topics and methods. Ethnography was commonly used for healthcare improvement research about vulnerable populations, e.g. elderly, psychiatry. Focussed ethnography was a prominent method, using a rapid feedback loop into improvement through focus and insider status. Ethnographic approaches such as the use of theory and focus on every day practices can foster improvement skills and habits such as creativity, learning and systems thinking. Conclusions: We have identified that a variety of ethnographic approaches can be relevant to improvement. The skills and habits we identified may help ethnographers reflect on their approaches in planning healthcare improvement studies and guide peer-review in this field. An important area of future research will be to understand how ethnographic findings are received by decision-makers

Study protocol: DEcisions in health Care to Introduce or Diffuse innovations using Evidence (DECIDE)

BACKGROUND: A range of evidence informs healthcare decision-making, from formal research findings to 'soft intelligence' or local data, as well as practical experience or tacit knowledge. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of such evidence into practice. Using a multi-level framework, this project will analyse how interactions between the evidence available and processes at the micro (individual/group) and meso (organisational/system) levels influence decisions to introduce or diffuse innovations in acute and primary care within the National Health Service in the UK. METHODS/DESIGN: This study will use a mixed methods design, combining qualitative and quantitative methods, and involves four interdependent work streams: (1) rapid evidence synthesis of relevant literature with stakeholder feedback; (2) in-depth case studies of 'real-world' decision-making in acute and primary care; (3) a national survey and discrete choice experiment; and (4) development of guidance for decision-makers and evaluators to support the use of evidence in decision-making. DISCUSSION: This study will enhance the understanding of decision-makers' use of diverse forms of evidence. The findings will provide insights into how and why some evidence does inform decisions to introduce healthcare innovations, and why barriers persist in other cases. It will also quantify decision-makers' preferences, including the 'tipping point' of evidence needed to shift stakeholders' views. Practical guidance will be shared with healthcare decision-makers and evaluators on uses of evidence to enable the introduction and diffusion of innovation