Design as a quality improvement strategy: The case for design expertise.

Bad design in safety-critical environments like healthcare can lead to users being frustrated, excluded or injured. In contrast, good design can make it easier to use a service correctly, with impacts on both the safety and efficiency of healthcare delivery, as well as the experience of patients and staff. The participative dimension of design as an improvement strategy has recently gained traction in the healthcare quality improvement literature. However, the role of design expertise and professional design has been much less explored. Good design does not happen by accident: it takes expertise and the specific reasoning that expert designers develop through practical experience and training. Here, we define design, show why poor design can be disastrous and illustrate the benefits of good design. We argue for the recognition of distinctive design expertise and describe some of its characteristics. Finally, we discuss how design could be better promoted in healthcare improvement.

Operational failures in general practice: a consensus-building study on the priorities for improvement.

BACKGROUND: System problems, known as operational failures, can greatly affect the work of GPs, with negative consequences for patient and professional experience, efficiency, and effectiveness. Many operational failures are tractable to improvement, but which ones should be prioritised is less clear. AIM: To build consensus among GPs and patients on the operational failures that should be prioritised to improve NHS general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online among NHS GPs and patients in several regions across England. METHOD: Between February and October 2021, two modified Delphi exercises were conducted online: one with NHS GPs, and a subsequent exercise with patients. Over two rounds, GPs rated the importance of a list of operational failures (n = 45) that had been compiled using existing evidence. The resulting shortlist was presented to patients for rating over two rounds. Data were analysed using median scores and interquartile ranges. Consensus was defined as 80% of responses falling within one value below and above the median. RESULTS: Sixty-two GPs responded to the first Delphi exercise, and 53.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. This exercise yielded consensus on 14 failures as a priority for improvement, which were presented to patients. Thirty-seven patients responded to the first patient Delphi exercise, and 89.2% (n = 33) were retained through to round two. Patients identified 13 failures as priorities. The highest scoring failures included inaccuracies in patients' medical notes, missing test results, and difficulties referring patients to other providers because of problems with referral forms. CONCLUSION: This study identified the highest-priority operational failures in general practice according to GPs and patients, and indicates where improvement efforts relating to operational failures in general practice should be focused.

Understanding access to general practice through the lens of Candidacy: a critical review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Dominant conceptualisations of access to healthcare are limited, framed in terms of speed and supply. The Candidacy Framework offers a more comprehensive approach, identifying diverse influences on how access is accomplished. AIM: We aimed to characterise how the Candidacy Framework can explain access to general practice - an increasingly fraught area of public debate and policy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative review guided by the principles of critical interpretive synthesis. METHODS: We conducted a literature review using an "author-led" approach, involving iterative analytically-guided searches. Papers were eligible for inclusion if they related to the context of general practice, without geographical or time limitations. Key themes relating to access to general practice were extracted and synthesised using the Candidacy Framework. RESULTS: 229 papers were included in the final synthesis. Each of the seven features identified in the original Candidacy Framework is highly salient to general practice. Using the lens of candidacy demonstrates that access to general practice is subject to multiple influences that are highly dynamic, contingent and subject to constant negotiation. These influences are socio-economically and institutionally patterned, creating risks to access for some groups. This analysis enables understanding of the barriers to access that may exist even though general practice in the UK is free at the point of care, but also demonstrates that a Candidacy Framework specific to this setting is needed. CONCLUSION: The Candidacy Framework has considerable value as a way of understanding access to general practice, offering new insights for policy and practice. The original framework would benefit from further customisation for the distinctive setting of general practice.

Great expectations? GPs' estimations of time required to deliver BMJ's '10 minute consultations'.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the time required to undertake consultations according to BMJ's 10-minute consultation articles.To quantify the tasks recommended in 10-minute consultation articles.To determine if, and to what extent, the time required and the number of tasks recommended have increased over the past 22 years. DESIGN: Analysis of estimations made by four general practitioners (GPs) of the time required to undertake tasks recommended in BMJ's 10-minute consultation articles. SETTING: Primary care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Four doctors with a combined total of 79 years of experience in the UK National Health Service following qualification as GPs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Median minimum estimated consultation length (the estimated time required to complete tasks recommended for all patients) and median maximum estimated consultation length (the estimated time required to complete tasks recommended for all patients and the additional tasks recommended in specific circumstances). Minimum, maximum and median consultation lengths reported for each year and for each 5-year period. RESULTS: Data were extracted for 44 articles. The median minimum and median maximum estimated consultation durations were 15.7 minutes (IQR 12.6-20.9) and 28.4 minutes (IQR 22.4-33.8), respectively. A median of 17 tasks were included in each article. There was no change in durations required over the 22 years examined. CONCLUSIONS: The approximate times estimated by GPs to deliver care according to 10-minute consultations exceed the time available in routine appointments. '10 minute consultations' is a misleading title that sets inappropriate expectations for what GPs can realistically deliver in their routine consultations. While maintaining aspirations for high-quality care is appropriate, practice recommendations need to take greater account of the limited time doctors have to deliver routine care.