Influences on the adoption of patient safety innovation in primary care: a qualitative exploration of staff perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Primary care is changing rapidly to meet the needs of an ageing and chronically ill population. New ways of working are called for yet the introduction of innovative service interventions is complicated by organisational challenges arising from its scale and diversity and the growing complexity of patients and their care. One such intervention is the multi-strand, single platform, Patient Safety Toolkit developed to help practices provide safer care in this dynamic and pressured environment where the likelihood of adverse incidents is increasing. Here we describe the attitudes of staff toward these tools and how their implementation was shaped by a number of contextual factors specific to each practice. METHODS: The Patient Safety Toolkit comprised six tools; a system of rapid note review, an online staff survey, a patient safety questionnaire, prescribing safety indicators, a medicines reconciliation tool, and a safe systems checklist. We implemented these tools at practices across the Midlands, the North West, and the South Coast of England and conducted semi-structured interviews to determine staff perspectives on their effectiveness and applicability. RESULTS: The Toolkit was used in 46 practices and a total of 39 follow-up interviews were conducted. Three key influences emerged on the implementation of the Toolkit these related to their ease of use and the novelty of the information they provide; whether their implementation required additional staff training or practice resource; and finally factors specific to the practice's local environment such as overlapping initiatives orchestrated by their CCG. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of a balanced toolkit to address a range of safety issues proved popular. A number of barriers and facilitators emerged in particular those tools that provided relevant information with a minimum impact on practice resource were favoured. Individual practice circumstances also played a role. Practices with IT aware staff were at an advantage and those previously utilising patient safety initiatives were less likely to adopt additional tools with overlapping outputs. By acknowledging these influences we can better interpret reaction to and adoption of individual elements of the toolkit and optimise future implementation.

Rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled study (the Getting out of the House Study).

BACKGROUND: One-third of stroke patients are dependent on others to get outside their homes. This can cause people to become housebound, leading to increased immobility, poor health, isolation and misery. There is some evidence that outdoor mobility rehabilitation can reduce these limitations. OBJECTIVE: To test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an outdoor mobility rehabilitation intervention for stroke patients. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with two groups allocated at a 1 : 1 ratio plus qualitative participant interviews. SETTING: Fifteen UK NHS stroke services throughout England, Scotland and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 568 stroke patients who wished to get out of the house more often, mean age of 71 years: 508 reached the 6-month follow-up and 10 were interviewed. INTERVENTION: Control was delivered prior to randomisation to all participants, and consisted of verbal advice and transport and outdoor mobility leaflets. Intervention was a targeted outdoor mobility rehabilitation programme delivered by 29 NHS therapists to 287 randomly chosen participants for up to 12 sessions over 4 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was participant health-related quality of life, measured by the Short Form questionnaire-36 items, version 2 (Social Function domain), 6 months after baseline. Secondary outcomes were functional ability, mobility, number of journeys (from monthly travel diaries), satisfaction with outdoor mobility (SWOM), psychological well-being and resource use [health care and Personal Social Services (PSS)] 6 months after baseline. Carer well-being was recorded. All outcome measures were collected by post and repeated 12 months after baseline. Outcomes for the groups were compared using statistical significance testing and adjusted for multiple membership to account for the effect of multiple therapists at different sites. Interviews were analysed using interpretive phenomenology to explore confidence. RESULTS: A median of seven intervention sessions [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7 sessions], median duration of 369 minutes (IQR 170-691.5 minutes) per participant was delivered. There was no significant difference between the groups on health-related quality of life (social function). There were no significant differences between groups in functional ability, psychological well-being or SWOM at 6- or 12-month follow-ups. There was a significant difference observed for travel journeys with the intervention group being 42% more likely to make a journey compared with the control group [rate ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14 to 1.67] at 6 months and 76% more likely (rate ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.95) at 12 months. The number of journeys was affected by the therapist effect. The mean incremental cost (total NHS and PSS cost) of the intervention was £3413.75 (95% CI -£448.43 to £7121.00), with an incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain of -0.027 (95% CI -0.060 to 0.007) according to the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and -0.003 (95% CI -0.016 to 0.006) according to the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions. At baseline, 259 out of 281 (92.2%) participants in the control group were dissatisfied with outdoor mobility but at the 6-month assessment this had reduced to 77.7% (181/233), a 15% reduction. The corresponding reduction in the intervention group was slightly greater (21%) than 268 out of 287 (93.4%) participants dissatisfied with outdoor mobility at baseline to 189 out of 261 (72.4%) at 6 months. Participants described losing confidence after stroke as being detrimental to outdoor mobility. Recruitment and retention rates were high. The intervention was deliverable by the NHS but had a neutral effect in all areas apart from potentially increasing the number of journeys. This was dependent on the therapist effect, meaning that some therapists were more successful than others. The control appeared to affect change. CONCLUSIONS: The outdoor mobility intervention provided in this study to these stroke patients was not clinically effective or cost-effective. However, the provision of personalised information and monthly diaries should be considered for all people who wish to get out more. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN58683841. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Stakeholders' views of UK nurse and pharmacist supplementary prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: Supplementary prescribing (SP) by pharmacists and nurses in the UK represents a unique approach to improving patients' access to medicines and better utilizing health care professionals' skills. Study aims were to explore the views of stakeholders involved in SP policy, training and practice, focusing upon issues such as SP benefits, facilitators, challenges, safety and costs, thereby informing future practice and policy. METHOD: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 43 purposively sampled UK stakeholders, including pharmacist and nurse supplementary prescribers, doctors, patient groups representatives, academics and policy developers. Analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken using a process of constant comparison and framework analysis, with coding of emergent themes. RESULTS: Stakeholders generally viewed SP positively and perceived benefits in terms of improved access to medicines and fewer delays, along with a range of facilitators and barriers to the implementation of this form of non-medical prescribing. Stakeholders' views on the economic impact of SP varied, but safety concerns were not considered significant. Future challenges and implications for policy included SP being potentially superseded by independent nurse and pharmacist prescribing, and the need to improve awareness of SP. Several potential tensions emerged including nurses' versus pharmacists' existing skills and training needs, supplementary versus independent prescribing, SP theory versus practice and prescribers versus non-prescribing peers. CONCLUSION: SP appeared to be broadly welcomed by stakeholders and was perceived to offer patient benefits. Several years after its introduction in the UK, stakeholders still perceived several implementation barriers and challenges and these, together with various tensions identified, might affect the success of supplementary and other forms of non-medical prescribing.

Nonmedical prescribing in the United kingdom: developments and stakeholder interests.

This article reflects upon the introduction of nonmedical prescribing in the United Kingdom and describes the historical developments within the National Health Service over the last 2 decades, together with an assessment of the impact of this prescribing for various stakeholders, drawing upon relevant research. We argue that a number of issues are associated with the introduction and development of nonmedical prescribing, including benefits to patients, the promise of increased autonomy for professions such as nursing and pharmacy, explicit and implicit government objectives, and threats to medical dominance and autonomy.