Walkrounds in practice: corrupting or enhancing a quality improvement intervention? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Walkrounds, introduced as Leadership (or Executive) WalkRounds, are a widely advocated model for increasing leadership engagement in patient safety to improve safety culture, but evidence for their effectiveness is mixed. In the English National Health Service (NHS), hospitals have been strongly encouraged to make use of methods closely based on the walkrounds approach. A study was conducted to explore how walkrounds are used in practice and to identify variations in implementation that might mediate their impact on safety and culture. METHODS: The data, collected from 82 semistructured interviews in the English NHS, were drawn from two components of a wider study of culture and behavior around quality and safety in the English system. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. FINDINGS: Our analysis highlights how local, pragmatic adjustments to the walkrounds approach could radically alter its character and the way in which it is received by those at the front line. The modification and expansion of walkrounds to increase the scope of knowledge produced could increase the value that executives draw from them. However, it risks replacing the main objectives of walkrounds--specific, actionable knowledge about safety issues, and a more positive safety culture and relationship between ward and board--with a form of surveillance that could alienate frontline staff and produce fallible insights. CONCLUSION: The studys findings suggest some plausible explanations for the mixed evidence for walkrounds' effectiveness in creating a safety culture. On a practical level, they point to critical questions that executives must ask themselves in practicing interventions of this nature to ensure that adaptations align rather than conflict with the intervention's model of change.

Stress in nurses: stress-related affect and its determinants examined over the nursing day.

BACKGROUND: Nurses are a stressed group and this may affect their health and work performance. The determinants of occupational stress in nurses and other occupational groups have almost invariably been examined in between subject studies. PURPOSE: This study aimed to determine if the main determinants of occupation stress, i.e. demand, control, effort and reward, operate within nurses. METHODS: A real time study using personal digital-assistant-based ecological momentary assessment to measure affect and its hypothesised determinants every 90 min in 254 nurses over three nursing shifts. The measures were negative affect, positive affect, demand/effort, control and reward. RESULTS: While the effects varied in magnitude between people, in general increased negative affect was predicted by high demand/effort, low control and low reward. Control and reward moderated the effects of demand/effort. High positive affect was predicted by high demand/effort, control and reward. CONCLUSIONS: The same factors are associated with variations in stress-related affect within nurses as between.

PD-L1 Testing in Urothelial Carcinoma: Analysis of a Series of 1401 Cases Using Both the 22C3 and SP142 Assays.

Immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) drugs are a novel, effective treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Worldwide, several different ICB drugs are approved, each developed and clinically validated with a specific PD-L1 compound diagnostic assay. As a result, PD-L1 testing workflows in routine practice are complex: requiring multiple assays across two platforms, with each assay having a different method of interpretation. Our service tested 1,401 urothelial carcinoma cases for PD-L1 expression, using both the 22C3 PharmDx assay (required prior to Pembrolizumab therapy) and SP142 assay (required prior to Atezolizumab therapy). Of the 1,401 cases tested, 621 cases (44%) were tested with both the 22C3 PharmDx and SP142 assays, 492 cases (35%) with 22C3 PharmDx only, and 288 cases (21%) with SP142 only. Each assay was used and interpreted according to the manufacturer's guidelines. The rate of positivity we observed was 26% with the 22C3 assay and 31% with the SP142 assay, similar to the pre-licensing studies for both drugs. The discrepancy observed between the assays was 11%, which reinforces the requirement for utilisation of the correct assay for each agent, and limits potential cross-utility of assays. This aspect must be considered when setting up a PD-L1 testing strategy in laboratories where both Pembrolizumab and Atezolizumab are available for the treatment of urothelial carcinoma but also has broader implications for testing of other cancers where multiple ICB drugs and their respective assays are approved.

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.

'New' and distributed leadership in quality and safety in health care, or 'old' and hierarchical? An interview study with strategic stakeholders.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the views of strategic level stakeholders on leadership for quality and safety in the UK National Health Service. METHODS: We interviewed 107 stakeholders with close involvement in quality and safety as professionals, managers, policy makers or commentators. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Participants identified the crucial role of leadership in ensuring safe, high quality care. Consistent with the academic literature, participants distinguished between traditional hierarchical 'concentrated' leadership associated with particular positions, and distributed leadership involving those with particular skills and abilities across multiple institutional levels. They clearly and explicitly saw a role for distributed leadership, emphasizing that all staff had responsibility for leading on patient safety and quality. They described the particular value of leadership coalitions between managers and clinicians. However, concern was expressed that distributed leadership could mean confusion about who was in charge, and that at national level it risked creating a vacuum of authority, mixed messages, and conflicting expectations and demands. Participants also argued that hierarchically based leadership was needed to complement distributed leadership, not least to provide focus, practical support and expertise, and managerial clout. CONCLUSIONS: Strategic level stakeholders see the most effective form of leadership for quality and safety as one that blends distributed and concentrated leadership. Policy and academic prescriptions about leadership may benefit from the sophisticated and pragmatic know-how of insiders who work in organizations that remain permeated by traditional structures, cleavages and power relationships.

A quest for patient-safe culture: contextual influences on patient safety performance.

OBJECTIVES: To use organizational change theory to explore the interplay of contextual influences on patient safety. METHODS: A multi-level comparative case study of eight National Health Service (NHS) acute hospital trusts in England, including 144 depth interviews with senior managers, staff involved with risk analysis and reporting, middle managers, and senior and junior clinicians, supplemented with documentary data and observation of nine meetings. Organizational change theory was used to identify content, contextual and process influences on patient safety. RESULTS: Organizational stability and staff engagement appeared to influence patient safety and specific contextual factors appeared to influence both organizational stability and staff engagement, both of which were important for patient safety. These contextual factors comprised: environmental shocks; cultural characteristics; processes and structures supportive of patient safety; and trust leadership style. A model is suggested that analyses the trusts in terms of these factors and then groups them into four trust types. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the massive and unpredictable impact of both internal and external environmental shocks and how they destabilize trusts distracting attention from patient safety. It also underlines the importance of regular self-assessment of internal and external risks and awareness of context.