Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service.

OBJECTIVE: The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice. METHODS: We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services. RESULTS: Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.

Effectiveness of a group intervention to reduce the psychological distress of healthcare staff: a pre-post quasi-experimental evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Work stress and compassion fatigue are prevalent among healthcare staff and their negative effects on staff well-being and patient care are well-known. This paper reports on the implementation and evaluation of Schwartz Rounds® (Rounds) in UK healthcare organizations, predominantly part of the National Health Service (NHS). Rounds are one-hour, typically monthly, multidisciplinary forums during which clinical and nonclinical healthcare staff discuss the emotional and social demands of delivering patient care. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of Rounds attendance on the psychological distress, work engagement, compassion and self-reflection of healthcare staff. METHODS: We used a pre-post control design to assess the effect of Rounds attendance across 10 UK healthcare organizations. This design was most appropriate given the voluntary nature of Rounds and ensured the study had ecological validity. Self-reported data were collected from attenders and non-attenders at baseline and at eight-months follow-up. The outcomes were psychological distress, work engagement, compassion and self-reflection. RESULTS: During the 8 months' study duration, regular attenders (N = 51) attended Rounds on average 4 times (2-8). Attenders showed a significantly greater decrease in psychological distress (as measured with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)) than non-attenders (N = 233; odds ratio of 0.197; 95% confidence interval (0.047-0.823)). However, Rounds attendance had no significant effect on work engagement, compassion and self-reflection. CONCLUSIONS: Rounds attendance was linked to a 19% reduction in psychological distress adjusting for covariates. As an organization-wide intervention, Rounds thus constitute an effective, relatively low-cost intervention to assist staff in dealing with the demands of their work and to improve their well-being.

'We needed to talk about it': The experience of sharing the emotional impact of health care work as a panellist in Schwartz Center Rounds® in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Schwartz Center Rounds® ('Rounds') are multidisciplinary forums where health care staff come together to reflect upon the emotional impact of their work. In each Round, a small number of staff (panellists) share experiences through stories to trigger reflection in audience members. Previous research has identified impacts associated with Rounds' attendance, but little is known about the experience and impact of Rounds from panellists' perspectives. This study is the first to explore the role of disclosure and reflection through storytelling in Rounds, specifically exploring panellists' motivations, experiences and reported impacts associated with panel participation. METHODS: Interviews with 50 panellists, from nine case-study sites in the United Kingdom, representing acute, community and mental health National Health Service trusts and hospices. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most panellists spoke positively about their experience of sharing their stories in Rounds. Reported impacts included: increased emotional resilience and acceptance of experiences; reduced negative assumptions about colleagues and increased approachability and trust increasing tolerance and compassion; the creation of a space to stop and think and to reframe negative patient experiences facilitating greater empathy and emotional disclosure becoming more visible and normative, thereby helping change culture. Impacts on staff were similar regardless of contextual variability, including their professional group or role, with the exception of impact on patient care, which was not mentioned by non-clinical staff. The extent of panel preparation and audience characteristics (e.g. size, composition and response to their stories) influenced panellists' experiences and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Rounds highlight the important role of disclosure and reflection through storytelling to support panellists with the emotional aspects of their work, providing a space for support with the emotional demands of health care, reducing the need for employees to be stoic. Panel participation also offers an important source of validation in organizations marked by scrutiny.

Correction to: Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys.

BACKGROUND: Improving openness-including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes-is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which examined failings of openness at one English hospital. We examine whether staff and patients' views on openness, and experiences of giving voice to concerns, have changed since the report's publication for better or worse. METHODS: Organisational-level data was collated for all trusts from the NHS National Staff Survey (2007-2017), NHS Acute Inpatient Survey (2004-2016) and NHS Community Mental Health Service User Survey (2007-2017). Survey items related to openness were identified and longitudinal statistical analysis conducted (piecewise growth curve and interrupted latent growth curve analysis) to determine whether there was evidence of a shift in the rate or direction of change following publication of the Francis report. RESULTS: For some variables there was a discernible change in trajectory after the publication of the Francis report. Staff survey variables continued to rise after 2013, with a statistically significant increase in rate for "fairness and effectiveness of incident reporting procedures" (from + 0.02 to + 0.06 per year; p < .001). For the patient surveys, the picture was more mixed: patient views about information provided by accident and emergency staff rose from a 0.3% increase per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01), and inpatients being involved in decision making increased from a 0.4% rise per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01); however, there were not rises in the other questions. Mental health patients reported a decrease after 2013 in being listened to (decreasing at a rate of 1.9% per year, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that the Francis inquiry may have had a positive impact on staff and acute inpatients' perceptions and experiences of openness in the NHS. However such improvements have not transpired in mental health. How best to create an environment in which patients can discuss their care and raise concerns openly in mental health settings may require further consideration.

Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: overview of lessons from a large multimethod study.

BACKGROUND: Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a high-level summary. RESULTS: We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.