Improving health outcomes for young people with long term conditions: The role of digital communication in current and future patient-clinician communication for NHS providers of specialist clinical services for young people - LYNC study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Young people living with long term conditions are vulnerable to health service disengagement. This endangers their long term health. Studies report requests for digital forms of communication - email, text, social media - with their health care team. Digital clinical communication is troublesome for the UK NHS. AIM: In this article we aim to present the research protocol for evaluating the impacts and outcomes of digital clinical communications for young people living with long term conditions and provide critical analysis of their use, monitoring and evaluation by NHS providers (LYNC study: Long term conditions, Young people, Networked Communications). METHODS: The research involves: (a) patient and public involvement activities with 16-24 year olds with and without long term health conditions; (b) six literature reviews; (c) case studies - the main empirical part of the study - and (d) synthesis and a consensus meeting. Case studies use a mixed methods design. Interviews and non-participant observation of practitioners and patients communicating in up to 20 specialist clinical settings will be combined with data, aggregated at the case level (non-identifiable patient data) on a range of clinical outcomes meaningful within the case and across cases. We will describe the use of digital clinical communication from the perspective of patients, clinical staff, support staff and managers, interviewing up to 15 young people and 15 staff per case study. Outcome data includes emergency admissions, A&E attendance and DNA (did not attend) rates. Case studies will be analysed to understand impacts of digital clinical communication on patient health outcomes, health care costs and consumption, ethics and patient safety.

Emergency Care Handover (ECHO study) across care boundaries: the need for joint decision making and consideration of psychosocial history.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate handover in emergency care is a threat to patient safety. Handover across care boundaries poses particular problems due to different professional, organisational and cultural backgrounds. While there have been many suggestions for standardisation of handover content, relatively little is known about the verbal behaviours that shape handover conversations. This paper explores both what is communicated (content) and how this is communicated (verbal behaviours) during different types of handover conversations across care boundaries in emergency care. METHODS: Three types of interorganisational (ambulance service to emergency department (ED) in 'resuscitation' and 'majors' areas) and interdepartmental handover conversations (referrals to acute medicine) were audio recorded in three National Health Service EDs. Handover conversations were segmented into utterances. Frequency counts for content and language forms were derived for each type of handover using Discourse Analysis. Verbal behaviours were identified using Conversation Analysis. RESULTS: 203 handover conversations were analysed. Handover conversations involving ambulance services were predominantly descriptive (60%-65% of utterances), unidirectional and focused on patient presentation (75%-80%). Referrals entailed more collaborative talk focused on the decision to admit and immediate care needs. Across all types of handover, only 1.5%-5% of handover conversation content related to the patient's social and psychological needs. CONCLUSIONS: Handover may entail both descriptive talk aimed at information transfer and collaborative talk aimed at joint decision-making. Standardisation of handover needs to accommodate collaborative aspects and should incorporate communication of information relevant to the patient's social and psychological needs to establish appropriate care arrangements at the earliest opportunity.

Managing competing organizational priorities in clinical handover across organizational boundaries.

OBJECTIVES: Handover across care boundaries poses additional challenges due to the different professional, organizational and cultural backgrounds of the participants involved. This paper provides a qualitative account of how practitioners in emergency care attempt to align their different individual and organizational priorities and backgrounds when handing over patients across care boundaries (ambulance service to emergency department (ED), and ED to acute medicine). METHODS: A total of 270 clinical handovers were observed in three emergency care pathways involving five participating NHS organizations (two ambulance services and three hospitals). Half-day process mapping sessions were conducted for each pathway. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 39 participants and analysed thematically. RESULTS: The management of patient flow and the fulfilment of time-related performance targets can create conflicting priorities for practitioners during handover. Practitioners involved in handover manage such competing organizational priorities through additional coordination effort and dynamic trade-offs. Practitioners perceive greater collaboration across departments and organizations, and mutual awareness of each other's goals and constraints as possible ways towards more sustainable improvement. CONCLUSION: Sustainable improvement in handover across boundaries in emergency care might require commitment by leaders from all parts of the local health economy to work as partners to establish a culture of integrated, patient-centred care.

Safety cases for medical devices and health information technology: involving health-care organisations in the assurance of safety.

In the United Kingdom, there are more than 9000 reports of adverse events involving medical devices annually. The regulatory processes in Europe and in the United States have been challenged as to their ability to protect patients effectively from unreasonable risk and harm. Two of the major shortcomings of current practice include the lack of transparency in the safety certification process and the lack of involvement of service providers. We reviewed recent international standardisation activities in this area, and we reviewed regulatory practices in other safety-critical industries. The review showed that the use of safety cases is an accepted practice in UK safety-critical industries, but at present, there is little awareness of this concept in health care. Safety cases have the potential to provide greater transparency and confidence in safety certification and to act as a communication tool between manufacturers, service providers, regulators and patients.