Video Recording Patients for Direct Care Purposes: Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of International Empirical Studies and UK Professional Guidance.

BACKGROUND: Video recordings of patients may offer advantages to supplement patient assessment and clinical decision-making. However, little is known about the practice of video recording patients for direct care purposes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to synthesize empirical studies published internationally to explore the extent to which video recording patients is acceptable and effective in supporting direct care and, for the United Kingdom, to summarize the relevant guidance of professional and regulatory bodies. METHODS: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and HMIC) were searched from 2012 to 2022. Eligible studies evaluated an intervention involving video recording of adult patients (≥18 years) to support diagnosis, care, or treatment. All study designs and countries of publication were included. Websites of UK professional and regulatory bodies were searched to identify relevant guidance. The acceptability of video recording patients was evaluated using study recruitment and retention rates and a framework synthesis of patients' and clinical staff's perspectives based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability by Sekhon. Clinically relevant measures of impact were extracted and tabulated according to the study design. The framework approach was used to synthesize the reported ethico-legal considerations, and recommendations of professional and regulatory bodies were extracted and tabulated. RESULTS: Of the 14,221 abstracts screened, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 13 guidance documents were retrieved, of which 7 were retained for review. The views of patients and clinical staff (16 studies) were predominantly positive, although concerns were expressed about privacy, technical considerations, and integrating video recording into clinical workflows; some patients were anxious about their physical appearance. The mean recruitment rate was 68.2% (SD 22.5%; range 34.2%-100%; 12 studies), and the mean retention rate was 73.3% (SD 28.6%; range 16.7%-100%; 17 studies). Regarding effectiveness (10 studies), patients and clinical staff considered video recordings to be valuable in supporting assessment, care, and treatment; in promoting patient engagement; and in enhancing communication and recall of information. Observational studies (n=5) favored video recording, but randomized controlled trials (n=5) did not demonstrate that video recording was superior to the controls. UK guidelines are consistent in their recommendations around consent, privacy, and storage of recordings but lack detailed guidance on how to operationalize these recommendations in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: Video recording patients for direct care purposes appears to be acceptable, despite concerns about privacy, technical considerations, and how to incorporate recording into clinical workflows. Methodological quality prevents firm conclusions from being drawn; therefore, pragmatic trials (particularly in older adult care and the movement disorders field) should evaluate the impact of video recording on diagnosis, treatment monitoring, patient-clinician communication, and patient safety. Professional and regulatory documents should signpost to practical guidance on the implementation of video recording in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022331825: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=331825.

Are Bubbles the Future of Dysphagia Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review Analysing Evidence on the Use of Carbonated Liquids in Dysphagia Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Dysphagia poses a huge health issue in our ageing population, impacting patients psychologically and through risk of aspiration, malnutrition and airway obstruction. The use of carbonated liquids to provide sensory enhancement as a tool to stimulate neuromuscular activity in dysphagia rehabilitation remains an area with limited research. This article reviews current evidence. METHOD: A data search of PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane was undertaken with set search terms. Abstracts were reviewed and selected by two clinicians according to inclusion criteria and papers were assessed using PRISMA methodology. RESULTS: Selected publications (1992-2022) involved a median of 23 participants with predominantly neurogenic dysphagia. Despite the differences in study designs all used videofluroscopy (VF) to assess outcome measures except Morishita et al. who used fiberoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallow (FEES). The studies were small scale but showed encouraging results. However, there was heterogeneity between results of specific outcome measures. One study surveyed taste which was overall positively received. CONCLUSIONS: There continues to remain limited evidence to direct the use of carbonated liquids in rehabilitation of dysphagia, however its role shows some promise. The heterogeneity of not just study designs but also study participants seems to be a primary barrier. Whilst evidence is encouraging, further prospective studies standardising patient cohorts, methodologies and quantitative outcome measures must be carried out. Longitudinal studies to look at the role of carbonated liquids in secretion management is another area of potential interest. In conclusion the use of carbonated liquid in dysphagia rehabilitation may have a potential role but without firm evidence-based research, successful use in clinical practice cannot be implemented.

How do hospital inpatients conceptualise patient safety? A qualitative interview study using constructivist grounded theory.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to involve patients in patient safety continue to revolve around professionally derived notions of minimising clinical risk, yet evidence suggests that patients hold perspectives on patient safety that are distinct from clinicians and academics. This study aims to understand how hospital inpatients across three different specialties conceptualise patient safety and develop a conceptual model that reflects their perspectives. METHODS: A qualitative semi-structured interview study was conducted with 24 inpatients across three clinical specialties (medicine for the elderly, elective surgery and maternity) at a large central London teaching hospital. An abbreviated form of constructivist grounded theory was employed to analyse interview transcripts. Constant comparative analysis and memo-writing using the clustering technique were used to develop a model of how patients conceptualise patient safety. RESULTS: While some patients described patient safety using terms consistent with clinical/academic definitions, patients predominantly conceptualised patient safety in the context of what made them 'feel safe'. Patients' feelings of safety arose from a range of care experiences involving specific actors: hospital staff, the patient, their friends/family/carers, and the healthcare organisation. Four types of experiences contributed to how patients conceptualise safety: actions observed by patients; actions received by patients; actions performed by patients themselves; and shared actions involving patients and other actors in their care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the need for a patient safety paradigm that is meaningful to all stakeholders, incorporating what matters to patients to feel safe in hospital. Additional work should explore and test how the proposed conceptual model can be practically applied and implemented to incorporate the patient conceptualisation of patient safety into everyday clinical practice.

What matters to medical ward patients, and do we measure it? A qualitative comparison of patient priorities and current practice in quality measurement, on UK NHS medical wards.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the quality metrics selected for public display on medical wards to patients' and carers' expressed quality priorities. METHODS: Multimodal qualitative evaluation of general medical wards and semi-structured interviews. SETTING: UK tertiary National Health Service (public) hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen patients and carers on acute medical wards and geriatric wards. RESULTS: Quality metrics on public display evaluated hand hygiene, hospital-acquired infections, nurse staffing, pressure ulcers, falls and patient feedback. The intended audience for these metrics was unclear, and the displays gave no indication as to whether performance was improving or worsening. Interviews identified three perceived key components of high-quality ward care: communication, staff attitudes and hygiene. These aligned poorly with the priorities on display. Suboptimal performance reporting had the potential to reduce patients' trust in their medical teams. More philosophically, patients' and carers' ongoing experiences of care would override any other evaluation, and they felt little need for measures relating to previous performance. The display of performance reports only served to emphasise patients' and carers' lack of control in this inpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap between general medical inpatients' care priorities and the aspects of care that are publicly reported. Patients and carers do not act as 'informed choosers' of healthcare in the inpatient setting, and tokenistic quality measurement may have unintended consequences.

Translating staff experience into organisational improvement: the HEADS-UP stepped wedge, cluster controlled, non-randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: Frontline insights into care delivery correlate with patients' clinical outcomes. These outcomes might be improved through near-real time identification and mitigation of staff concerns. We evaluated the effects of a prospective frontline surveillance system on patient and team outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective, stepped wedge, non-randomised, cluster controlled trial; prespecified per protocol analysis for high-fidelity intervention delivery. PARTICIPANTS: Seven interdisciplinary medical ward teams from two hospitals in the UK. INTERVENTION: Prospective clinical team surveillance (PCTS): structured daily interdisciplinary briefings to capture staff concerns, with organisational facilitation and feedback. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was excess length of stay (eLOS): an admission more than 24 hours above the local average for comparable patients. Secondary outcomes included safety and teamwork climates, and incident reporting. Mixed-effects models adjusted for time effects, age, comorbidity, palliation status and ward admissions. Safety and teamwork climates were measured with the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. High-fidelity PCTS delivery comprised high engagement and high briefing frequency. RESULTS: Implementation fidelity was variable, both in briefing frequency (median 80% working days/month, IQR 65%-90%) and engagement (median 70 issues/ward/month, IQR 34-113). 1714/6518 (26.3%) intervention admissions had eLOS versus 1279/4927 (26.0%) control admissions, an absolute risk increase of 0.3%. PCTS increased eLOS in the adjusted intention-to-treat model (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.58, p=0.003). Conversely, high-fidelity PCTS reduced eLOS (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94, p=0.006). High-fidelity PCTS also increased total, high-yield and non-nurse incident reports (incidence rate ratios 1.28-1.79, all p<0.002). Sustained PCTS significantly improved safety and teamwork climates over time. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the potential benefits and pitfalls of ward-level interdisciplinary interventions. While these interventions can improve care delivery in complex, fluid environments, the manner of their implementation is paramount. Suboptimal implementation may have an unexpectedly negative impact on performance. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 34806867 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34806867).

Translating concerns into action: a detailed qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary intervention on medical wards.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how frontline reports of day-to-day care failings might be better translated into improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary team intervention capitalising on the frontline experience of care delivery. Prospective clinical team surveillance (PCTS) involved structured interdisciplinary briefings to capture challenges in care delivery, facilitated organisational escalation of the issues they identified, and feedback. Eighteen months of ethnography and two focus groups were conducted with staff taking part in a trial of PCTS. RESULTS: PCTS fostered psychological safety-a confidence that the team would not embarrass or punish those who speak up. This was complemented by a hard edge of accountability, whereby team members would regulate their own behaviour in anticipation of future briefings. Frontline concerns were triaged to managers, or resolved autonomously by ward teams, reversing what had been well-established normalisations of deviance. Junior clinicians found a degree of catharsis in airing their concerns, and their teams became more proactive in addressing improvement opportunities. PCTS generated tangible organisational changes, and enabled managers to make a convincing case for investment. However, briefings were constrained by the need to preserve professional credibility, and staff found some comfort in avoiding accountability . At higher organisational levels, frontline concerns were subject to competition with other priorities, and their resolution was limited by the scale of the challenges they described. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective safety strategies relying on staff-volunteered data produce acceptable, negotiated accounts, subject to the many interdisciplinary tensions that characterise ward work. Nonetheless, these strategies give managers access to the realities of frontline cares, and support frontline staff to make incremental changes in their daily work. These are goals for learning healthcare organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 34806867.

Multi-Morbidity in Hospitalised Older Patients: Who Are the Complex Elderly?

BACKGROUND: No formal definition for the "complex elderly" exists; moreover, these older patients with high levels of multi-morbidity are not readily identified as such at point of hospitalisation, thus missing a valuable opportunity to manage the older patient appropriately within the hospital setting. OBJECTIVES: To empirically identify the complex elderly patient based on degree of multi-morbidity. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using administrative data. SETTING: English hospitals during the financial year 2012-13. SUBJECTS: All admitted patients aged 65 years and over. METHODS: By using exploratory analysis (correspondence analysis) we identify multi-morbidity groups based on 20 target conditions whose hospital prevalence was ≥ 1%. RESULTS: We examined a total of 2788900 hospital admissions. Multi-morbidity was highly prevalent, 62.8% had 2 or more of the targeted conditions while 4.7% had six or more. Multi-morbidity increased with age from 56% (65-69yr age-groups) up to 67% (80-84yr age-group). The average multi-morbidity was 3.2±1.2 (SD). Correspondence analysis revealed 3 distinct groups of older patients. Group 1 (multi-morbidity ≤2), associated with cancer and/or metastasis; Group 2 (multi-morbidity of 3, 4 or 5), associated with chronic pulmonary disease, lung disease, rheumatism and osteoporosis; finally Group 3 with the highest level of multi-morbidity (≥6) and associated with heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, diabetes, hypertension and myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: By using widely available hospital administrative data, we propose patients in Groups 2 and 3 to be identified as the complex elderly. Identification of multi-morbidity patterns can help to predict the needs of the older patient and improve resource provision.

A stepped wedge, cluster controlled trial of an intervention to improve safety and quality on medical wards: the HEADS-UP study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of preventable deaths in healthcare are due to errors on general wards. Staff perceptions of safety correlate with patient survival, but effectively translating ward teams' concerns into tangibly improved care remains problematic. The Hospital Event Analysis Describing Significant Unanticipated Problems (HEADS-UP) trial evaluates a structured, multidisciplinary team briefing, capturing safety threats and adverse events, with rapid feedback to clinicians and service managers. This is the first study to rigorously assess a simpler intervention for general medical units, alongside an implementation model applicable to routine clinical practice. METHODS/ANALYSIS: 7 wards from 2 hospitals will progressively incorporate the intervention into daily practice over 14 months. Wards will adopt HEADS-UP in a pragmatic sequence, guided by local clinical enthusiasm. Initial implementation will be facilitated by a research lead, but rapidly delegated to clinical teams. The primary outcome is excess length of stay (a surplus stay of 24 h or more, compared to peer institutions' Healthcare Resource Groups-predicted length of stay). Secondary outcomes are 30-day readmission or excess length of stay; in-hospital death or death/readmission within 30 days; healthcare-acquired infections; processes of escalation of care; use of traditional incident-reporting systems; and patient safety and teamwork climates. HEADS-UP will be analysed as a stepped wedge cluster controlled trial. With 7840 patients, using best and worst case predictions, the study would achieve between 75% and 100% power to detect a 2-14% absolute risk reduction in excess length of stay (two-sided p<0.05). Regression analysis will use generalised linear mixed models or generalised estimating equations, and a time-to-event regression model. A qualitative analysis will evaluate facilitators and barriers to HEADS-UP implementation and impact. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participating institutions' Research and Governance departments approved the study. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN34806867.

Patient safety skills in primary care: a national survey of GP educators.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians have a vital role in promoting patient safety that goes beyond their technical competence. The qualities and attributes of the safe hospital doctor have been explored but similar work within primary care is lacking. Exploring the skills and attributes of a safe GP may help to inform the development of training programmes to promote patient safety within primary care. This study aimed to determine the views of General Practice Educational Supervisors (GPES) regarding the qualities and attributes of a safe General Practitioner (GP) and the perceived trainability of these 'safety skills' and to compare selected results with those generated by a previous study of hospital doctors. METHODS: This was a two-stage study comprising content validation of a safety skills questionnaire (originally developed for hospital doctors) (Stage 1) and a prospective survey of all GPES in Scotland (n = 691) (Stage 2). RESULTS: Stage 1: The content-validated questionnaire comprised 66 safety skills/attributes across 17 broad categories with an overall content validation index of 0.92. Stage 2: 348 (50%) GPES completed the survey. GPES felt the skills/attributes most important to being a safe GP were honesty (93%), technical clinical skills (89%) and conscientiousness (89%). That deemed least important/relevant to being a safe GP was leadership (36%). This contrasts sharply with the views of hospital doctors in the previous study. GPES felt the most trainable safety skills/attributes were technical skills (93%), situation awareness (75%) and anticipation/preparedness (71%). The least trainable were honesty (35%), humility (33%) and patient awareness/empathy (30%). Additional safety skills identified as relevant to primary care included patient advocacy, negotiation skills, accountability/ownership and clinical intuition ('listening to that worrying little inner voice'). CONCLUSIONS: GPES believe a broad range of skills and attributes contribute to being a safe GP. Important but subtle differences exist between what primary care and secondary care doctors perceive as core safety attributes. Educationalists, GPs and patient safety experts should collaborate to develop and implement training in these skills to ensure that current and future GPs possess the necessary competencies to engage and lead in safety improvement efforts.

What is known about adverse events in older medical hospital inpatients? A systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Large international studies have shown that older hospital inpatients are at particular risk of adverse events. The purpose of this review was to synthesize data from studies designed to assess the scale and nature of this harm, with the ultimate aim of informing the development of new safety and quality measurement tools to facilitate improved hospital care for these vulnerable patients. DATA SOURCES STUDY SELECTION: and data extraction A systematic search using Ovid SP and other sources was carried out, rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied and quality assessment of included studies was conducted. Data were synthesized to give a picture of the incidence, types, causes, preventability and outcomes of adverse events in older medical inpatients. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine relevant studies were identified. A wide range of adverse event incidences were reported, from 5.29 to 6.2% in re-analyses of large adverse event studies, to 60% in studies in which the development of 'geriatric syndromes' (e.g. falls, delirium, incontinence) was also considered to be adverse events. Important causative factors other than age included clinical complexity, co-morbidity, illness severity, reduced functional ability and lower quality of care. Adverse events in older people lead to unnecessary interventions with resultant complications and increased length of stay. CONCLUSION: More work is needed to understand the complex nature of adverse events in older inpatients. We must tailor safety measurement and improvement strategies to address challenges presented by the complexity of the geriatric syndromes and the processes of care encountered by older inpatients.

How can we keep patients with dementia safe in our acute hospitals? A review of challenges and solutions.

Maintaining patient safety in acute hospitals is a global health challenge. Traditionally, patient safety measures have been concentrated on critical care and surgical patients. In this review the medical literature was reviewed over the last ten years on aspects of patient safety specifically related to patients with dementia. Patients with dementia do badly in hospital with frequent adverse events resulting in the geriatric syndromes of falls, delirium and loss of function with increased length of stay and increased mortality. Contributory factors include inadequate assessment and treatment, inappropriate intervention, discrimination, low staff levels and lack of staff training. Unfortunately there is no one simple solution to this problem, but what is needed is a multifactorial, multilevel approach at the seven levels of care - patient, task, staff, team, environment, organisation and institution. Improving safety and quality of care for patients with dementia in acute hospitals will benefit all patients and is an urgent priority for the NHS.

U.K. parents' decision-making about measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine 10 years after the MMR-autism controversy: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Public concern about an unsubstantiated link between MMR vaccine and autism stemmed from a 1998 paper by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues, and the substantial media coverage which that work attracted. Though the Wakefield paper is now discredited and an MMR-autism link has never been demonstrated empirically, this concern has manifested in over a decade of suboptimal MMR uptake. Few qualitative studies have explored parents' MMR decision-making since uptake began to improve in 2004. This study updates and adds methodological rigour to the evidence base. METHODS: 24 mothers planning to accept, postpone or decline the first MMR dose (MMR1) for their 11-36 month-old children, described their decision-making in semi-structured interviews. Mothers were recruited via General Practice, parents' groups/online forums, and chain referral. MMR1 status was obtained from General Practice records 6 months post-interview. Interview transcripts were coded and interpreted using a modified Grounded Theory approach. RESULTS: Five themes were identified: MMR vaccine and controversy; Social and personal consequences of MMR decision; Health professionals and policy; Severity and prevalence of measles, mumps and rubella infections; Information about MMR and alternatives. Results indicated that MMR1 acceptors were sympathetic toward Wakefield as a person, but universally rejected his study which sparked the controversy; parents opting for single vaccines expressed the sense that immune overload is not a consideration but that not all three components of MMR are warranted by disease severity; and MMR1 rejectors openly criticised other parents' MMR decisions and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: This study corroborated some previous qualitative work but indicated that the shrinking group of parents now rejecting MMR comprises mainly those with more extreme and complex anti-immunisation views, whilst parents opting for single vaccines may use second-hand information about the controversy. In response, policymakers and practitioners should revise their expectations of today's MMR decision-makers, and their methods for supporting them.

Reviewing methodologically disparate data: a practical guide for the patient safety research field.

This article addresses key questions frequently asked by researchers conducting systematic reviews in patient safety. This discipline is relatively young, and asks complex questions about complex aspects of health care delivery and experience, therefore its studies are typically methodologically heterogeneous, non-randomized and complex; but content rich and highly relevant to practice. Systematic reviews are increasingly necessary to drive forward practice and research in this area, but the data do not always lend themselves to 'standard' review methodologies. This accessible 'how-to' article demonstrates that data diversity need not preclude high-quality systematic reviews. It draws together information from published guidelines and experience within our multidisciplinary patient safety research group to provide entry-level advice for the clinician-researcher new to systematic reviewing, to non-biomedical research data or to both. It offers entry-level advice, illustrated with detailed practical examples, on defining a research question, creating a comprehensive search strategy, selecting articles for inclusion, assessing study quality, extracting data, synthesizing data and evaluating the impact of your review. The article concludes with a comment on the vital role of robust systematic reviews in the continuing advancement of the patient safety field.

Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: a systematic review.

Suboptimal childhood vaccination uptake results in disease outbreaks, and in developed countries is largely attributable to parental choice. To inform evidence-based interventions, we conducted a systematic review of factors underlying parental vaccination decisions. Thirty-one studies were reviewed. Outcomes and methods are disparate, which limits synthesis; however parents are consistently shown to act in line with their attitudes to combination childhood vaccinations. Vaccine-declining parents believe that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective and that the diseases they are given to prevent are mild and uncommon; they mistrust their health professionals, Government and officially-endorsed vaccine research but trust media and non-official information sources and resent perceived pressure to risk their own child's safety for public health benefit. Interventions should focus on detailed decision mechanisms including disease-related anticipated regret and perception of anecdotal information as statistically representative. Self-reported vaccine uptake, retrospective attitude assessment and unrepresentative samples limit the reliability of reviewed data - methodological improvements are required in this area.