Study of Whole blood in Frontline Trauma (SWiFT): implementation study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled bleeding is a major cause of death for patients with major trauma. Current transfusion practices vary, and there is uncertainty about the optimal strategy. Whole blood (WB) transfusion, which contains all components in one bag, is considered potentially advantageous, particularly for resuscitating patients with major bleeding in the prehospital setting. It could potentially improve survival, reduce donor risk and simplify the processes of delivering blood transfusions outside hospitals. However, the evidence supporting the effectiveness and safety of WB compared with the standard separate blood component therapy is limited. A multicentre randomised controlled trial will be conducted, alongside an implementation study, to assess the efficacy, cost-effectiveness and implementation of prehospital WB transfusion in the prehospital environment. The implementation study will focus on evaluating the acceptability and integration of the intervention into clinical settings and on addressing broader contextual factors that may influence its success or failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid design will be employed. The implementation study will use qualitative methods, encompassing comprehensive interviews and focus groups with operational staff, patients and blood donor representatives. Staff will be purposefully selected to ensure a wide range of perspectives based on their professional background and involvement in the WB pathway. The study design includes: (1) initial assessment of current practice and processes in the WB pathway; (2) qualitative interviews with up to 40 operational staff and (3) five focus groups with staff and donor representatives. Data analysis will be guided by the theoretical lenses of the Normalisation Process Theory and the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was prospectively registered and approved by the South Central-Oxford C Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and provided to all relevant stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23657907; EudraCT: 2021-006876-18; IRAS Number: 300414; REC: 22/SC/0072.

Time is a terrible thing to waste: optimising use of intraoperative monitoring practitioner time towards maximising in-house IOM service provision and reducing spend on external provision.

Intraoperative monitoring (IOM) during orthopaedic and neurosurgical operations informs surgeons about the integrity of patients' central and peripheral nervous systems. It is provided by IOM practitioners (IOMPs), who are usually neurophysiology healthcare scientists. Increasing awareness of the benefits for patient safety and surgical outcomes, along with post-COVID-19 service recovery, has resulted in a material increase in demand for IOM provision nationally, and particularly at Salford Royal Hospital (SRH), which is a regional specialist neurosciences centre.There is a shortage of IOMPs in the UK National Health Service (NHS). At SRH, this is exacerbated by staff capacity shortage, requiring £202 800 of supplementary private provision in 2022.At SRH, IOMPs work in pairs. Our productive time is wasted by delays to surgical starts beyond our control and by paired working for much of a surgery session. This quality improvement (QI) project set out to release productive time by: calling the second IOMP to theatre only shortly before start time, the other IOMP returning to the office during significant delays, releasing an IOMP from theatre when appropriate and providing a laptop in theatre for other work.We tested and refined these change ideas over two plan-do-study-act improvement cycles. Compared with complete paired working, we increased the time available for additional productive work and breaks from an average of 102 to 314 min per operating day, not quite achieving our project target of 360 min.The new ways of working we developed are a step towards ability (when staff capacity increases) to test supporting two (simultaneous) operations with three IOMPs (rather than two pairs of IOMPs). Having significantly improved the use of staff time, we then also used our QI project data to make a successful business case for investment in two further IOMP posts with a predicted net saving of £20 000 per year along with other associated benefits.

Supporting translation of research evidence into practice-the use of Normalisation Process Theory to assess and inform implementation within randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The status of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as the 'gold standard' for evaluating efficacy in healthcare interventions is increasingly debated among the research community, due to often insufficient consideration for implementation. Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which focuses on the work required to embed processes into practice, offers a potentially useful framework for addressing these concerns. While the theory has been deployed in numerous RCTs to date, more work is needed to consolidate understanding of if, and how, NPT may aid implementation planning and processes within RCTs. Therefore, this review seeks to understand how NPT contributes to understanding the dynamics of implementation processes within RCTs. Specifically, this review will identify and characterise NPT operationalisation, benefits and reported challenges and limitations in RCTs. METHODS: A qualitative systematic review with narrative synthesis of peer-reviewed journal articles from eight databases was conducted. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported sufficient detail on the use of NPT within RCTs in a healthcare domain. A pre-specified data extraction template was developed based on the research questions of this review. A narrative synthesis was performed to identify recurrent findings. RESULTS: Searches identified 48 articles reporting 42 studies eligible for inclusion. Findings suggest that NPT is primarily operationalised prospectively during the data collection stage, with limited sub-construct utilisation overall. NPT is beneficial in understanding implementation processes by aiding the identification and analysis of key factors, such as understanding intervention fidelity in real-world settings. Nearly three-quarters of studies failed to report the challenges and limitations of utilising NPT, though coding difficulties and data falling outside the NPT framework are most common. CONCLUSIONS: NPT appears to be a consistent and generalisable framework for explaining the dynamics of implementation processes within RCTs. However, operationalisation of the theory to its full extent is necessary to improve its use in practice, as it is currently deployed in varying capacities. Recommendations for future research include investigation of NPT alongside other frameworks, as well as earlier operationalisation and greater use of NPT sub-constructs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this systematic review was accepted for public registration on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022345427) on 26 July 2022.

Learning from the universal, proactive outreach of the Brazilian Community Health Worker model: impact of a Community Health and Wellbeing Worker initiative on vaccination, cancer screening and NHS health check uptake in a deprived community in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Delays in preventative service uptake are increasing in the UK. Universal, comprehensive monthly outreach by Community Health and Wellbeing Workers (CHW), who are integrated at the GP practice and local authority, offer a promising alternative to general public health campaigns as it personalises health promotion and prevention of disease holistically at the household level. We sought to test the ability of this model, which is based on the Brazilian Family Health Strategy, to increase prevention uptake in the UK. METHODS: Analysis of primary care patient records for 662 households that were allocated to five CHWWs from July 2021. Primary outcome was the Composite Referral Completion Indicator (CRCI), a measure of how many health promotion activities were received by members of a household relative to the ones that they were eligible for during the period July 2021-April 2022. The CRCI was compared between the intervention group (those who had received at least one visit) and the control group (allocated households that were yet to receive a visit). A secondary outcome was the number of GP visits in the intervention and control groups during the study period and compared to a year prior. RESULTS: Intervention and control groups were largely comparable in terms of household occupancy and service eligibilities. A total of 2251 patients in 662 corresponding households were allocated to 5 CHWs and 160 households had received at least one visit during the intervention period. The remaining households were included in the control group. Overall service uptake was 40% higher in the intervention group compared to control group (CRCI: 0.21 ± 0.15 and 0.15 ± 0.19 respectively). Likelihood of immunisation uptake specifically was 47% higher and cancer screening and NHS Health Checks was 82% higher. The average number of GP consultations per household decreased by 7.4% in the intervention group over the first 10 months of the pilot compared to the 10 months preceding its start, compared with a 0.6% decrease in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the short study period these are promising findings in this deprived, traditionally hard to reach community and demonstrates potential for the Brazilian community health worker model to be impactful in the UK. Further analysis is needed to examine if this approach can reduce health inequalities and increase cost effectiveness of health promotion approaches.

Healthcare professional and manager perceptions on drivers, benefits, and challenges of telemedicine: results from a cross-sectional survey in the Italian NHS.

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic provided new challenges and opportunities for patients and healthcare providers while accelerating the trend of digital healthcare transformation. This study explores the perspectives of healthcare professionals and managers on (i) drivers to the implementation of telemedicine services and (ii) perceived benefits and challenges related to the use of telemedicine across the Italian National Health Service. METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was distributed to professionals working within 308 healthcare organisations in different Italian regions. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through a self-administered questionnaire (June-September 2021). Responses were analysed using summary statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Key factors driving the adoption of telemedicine have been grouped into (i) organisational drivers (reduce the virus spread-80%; enhance care quality and efficiency-61%), (ii) technological drivers (ease of use-82%; efficacy and reliability-64%; compliance with data governance regulations-64%) and (iii) regulatory drivers (regulations' semplification-84%). Nearly all respondents perceive telemedicine as useful in improving patient care (96%). The main benefits reported by respondents are shorter waiting lists, reduced Emergency Department attendance, decreased patient and clinician travel, and more frequent patient-doctor interactions. However, only 7% of respondents believe that telemedicine services are more effective than traditional care and 66% of the healthcare professionals believe that telemedicine can't completely substitute in-person visits due to challenges with physical examination and patient-doctor relationships. Other reported challenges include poor quality and interoperability of telemedicine platforms and scarce integration of telemedicine with traditional care services. Moreover, healthcare professionals believe that some groups of patients experience difficulties in accessing and using the technologies due to socio-cultural factors, technological and linguistic challenges and the absence of caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents believe that telemedicine can be useful to complement and augment traditional care. However, many challenges still need to be overcome to fully consider telemedicine a standard of care. Strategies that could help address these challenges include additional regulations on data governance and reimbursements, evidence-based guidelines for the use of telemedicine, greater integration of tools and processes, patient-centred training for clinicians, patient-facing material to assist patients in navigating virtual sessions, different language options, and greater involvement of caregivers in the care process.

Toward Shared Decision-Making in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care decisions are a critical determinant in the evolution of chronic illness. In shared decision-making (SDM), patients and clinicians work collaboratively to reach evidence-based health decisions that align with individual circumstances, values, and preferences. This personalized approach to clinical care likely has substantial benefits in the oversight of degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), a type of nontraumatic spinal cord injury. Its chronicity, heterogeneous clinical presentation, complex management, and variable disease course engenders an imperative for a patient-centric approach that accounts for each patient's unique needs and priorities. Inadequate patient knowledge about the condition and an incomplete understanding of the critical decision points that arise during the course of care currently hinder the fruitful participation of health care providers and patients in SDM. This study protocol presents the rationale for deploying SDM for DCM and delineates the groundwork required to achieve this. OBJECTIVE: The study's primary outcome is the development of a comprehensive checklist to be implemented upon diagnosis that provides patients with essential information necessary to support their informed decision-making. This is known as a core information set (CIS). The secondary outcome is the creation of a detailed process map that provides a diagrammatic representation of the global care workflows and cognitive processes involved in DCM care. Characterizing the critical decision points along a patient's journey will allow for an effective exploration of SDM tools for routine clinical practice to enhance patient-centered care and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: Both CISs and process maps are coproduced iteratively through a collaborative process involving the input and consensus of key stakeholders. This will be facilitated by Myelopathy.org, a global DCM charity, through its Research Objectives and Common Data Elements for Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy community. To develop the CIS, a 3-round, web-based Delphi process will be used, starting with a baseline list of information items derived from a recent scoping review of educational materials in DCM, patient interviews, and a qualitative survey of professionals. A priori criteria for achieving consensus are specified. The process map will be developed iteratively using semistructured interviews with patients and professionals and validated by key stakeholders. RESULTS: Recruitment for the Delphi consensus study began in April 2023. The pilot-testing of process map interview participants started simultaneously, with the formulation of an initial baseline map underway. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol marks the first attempt to provide a starting point for investigating SDM in DCM. The primary work centers on developing an educational tool for use in diagnosis to enable enhanced onward decision-making. The wider objective is to aid stakeholders in developing SDM tools by identifying critical decision junctures in DCM care. Through these approaches, we aim to provide an exhaustive launchpad for formulating SDM tools in the wider DCM community. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46809.

Clinical-scientist-led transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE): using extended roles to improve the service.

At the North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, we perform transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE), a semi-invasive diagnostic test using ultrasound for high-quality heart imaging. TOE allows accurate diagnosis of serious heart problems to support high-quality clinical decision-making about treatment pathways. The procedure can be lengthy and is traditionally performed by a consultant cardiologist, who typically has multiple commitments. This constrains patient access to TOE, leading to waits from referral to test, delaying treatment decisions.In this quality improvement project, we improved access by redesigning workforce roles. The clinical scientist, who had been supporting the consultant during TOE clinics, took on performing the procedure as the main operator. We used the Model for Improvement to develop this clinical-scientist-led service-delivery model, and then test and refine it. This increased capacity and frequency of TOE clinics, reducing waits and releasing around 2 days per month of consultant time.Over five plan-do-study-act cycles, we tested six changes/refinements. Our targets were to reduce the maximum waiting time for TOE to 3 working days for inpatients and to 14 working days for outpatients. We succeeded, achieving reductions in mean waiting times from 7.7 days to 3.0 days for inpatients and from 33.2 days to 8.3 days for outpatients.TOE requires intubation; when this fails, TOE is abandoned. We believe light (rather than heavy) sedation is helpful for this intubation. We reduced sedation levels (from a median of 3 mg of midazolam to 1.5 mg) and, as a secondary outcome of this project, reduced the intubation failure rate from 13% to 0% (over 32 postchange patients).Following this project, our TOE service is usually performed by a clinical scientist in echocardiography who has British Society of Echocardiography TOE accreditation and advanced training. We have sustained the improved performance and demonstrated the value of enhanced roles for clinical scientists.

Time to be more efficient: reducing wasted transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) diagnostic appointment slots at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust.

Transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) is one of the most requested non-invasive cardiac imaging diagnostic modalities available in the National Health Service (NHS). There is persistently high demand, but nationally, activity has lagged, producing increasing numbers of breaches of the 6-week waiting time target. This delays patients' diagnosis and treatment.Patients attend hospital for TTE either as a clinic-linked or a standalone appointment. In this quality improvement project, we identified that the clinic-linked slots were a major source of wasted capacity due to both unbooked slots and a high rate of patients not attending their appointments (DNA).DNA is a complex issue, aggravated in our trust by many IT systems, complex clinic-booking pathways and restricted patient communication channels. We parked changing these processes, pending an imminent, unifying IT development programme. We focused instead on unused clinic-linked appointments, with the goal of reducing these from 18% (~31 of ~175 allocated each week) to 5% by the end of the 14 week project period.In close collaboration with service stakeholders, we identified that the primary root causes were related to the clinic-linked TTE booking pathway. The change idea was a 7-day rule: after reminders at 9 and 8 days prior to the clinic date, any appointment slots still unbooked by cardiology sub-specialities for patients attending clinic-linked appointments at 7 days, would be used for booking standalone TTE patients.We refined this process over two plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, reducing unused (wasted) appointment slots, allocated initially to clinic-linked patients, to a sustained level of 5.1%, meaning we could now perform approximately 21 additional TTE tests weekly; we have materially increased activity without increasing capacity.This contributed to a significant reduction in 6-week TTE waiting-time breaches. Over the project, this went from 378 (30%, February 2022) to 71 (8%, September 2022) and latest data show 28 (4%, February 2023).

Unpacking the 'process of sustaining'-identifying threats to sustainability and the strategies used to address them: a longitudinal multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Although sustainability remains a recognised challenge for Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives, most available research continues to investigate sustainability at the end of implementation. As a result, the learning and continuous adjustments that shape sustainability outcomes are lost. With little understanding of the actions and processes that influence sustainability within QI initiatives, there is limited practical guidance and direction on how to enhance the sustainability of QI initiatives. This study aims to unpack the 'process of sustaining', by exploring threats to sustainability encountered throughout the implementation of QI Initiatives and identifying strategies used by QI teams to address these threats over time. METHODS: A longitudinal multiple case study design was employed to follow 4 QI initiatives over a 3-year period. A standardised sustainability tool was used quarterly to collect perceptions of sustainability threats and actions throughout implementation. Interviews (n=38), observations (32.5 h), documentary analysis, and a focus group (n=10) were conducted to enable a greater understanding of how the process of sustaining is supported in practice. Data were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Sustainability (CFS) to conduct thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis identified five common threats to sustainability: workforce stability, improvement timelines, organisational priorities, capacity for improvement, and stakeholder support. Each of these threats impacted multiple sustainability constructs demonstrating the complexity of the issues encountered. In response to threats, 12 strategies to support the process of sustaining were identified under three themes: engagement (five strategies that promoted the development of relationships), integration (three strategies that supported initiatives to become embedded within local systems), and adaptation (four strategies that enhanced understanding of, and response to, emergent conditions and contextual needs). CONCLUSIONS: Sustaining improvements from QI initiatives requires continuous investment in relationships, resilience to integrate improvements in local systems, and flexibility to understand emergent conditions. Findings provide practitioners, funders, and researchers with a better understanding of, and preparation for, the threats associated with sustaining improvements from QI initiatives and offer insight into specific actions that can be taken to mitigate these risks. This learning can be used to inform future initiative design and support, to optimise the sustainability of healthcare improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Oral health promotion in acute hospital setting: a quality improvement programme.

Tooth extraction is the most common hospital procedure for children aged 6-10 years in England. Tooth decay is almost entirely preventable and is inequitably distributed across the population: it can cause pain, infection, school absences and undermine overall health status.An oral health programme (OHP) was delivered in a hospital setting, comprising: (1) health promotion activities; (2) targeted supervised toothbrushing (STB) and (3) staff training. Outcomes were measured using three key performance indicators (KPI1: percentage of children/families seeing promotional material; KPI2: number of children receiving STB; KPI3: number of staff trained) and relevant qualitative indicators. Data were collected between November 2019 and August 2021 using surveys and data from the online booking platform.OHP delivery was impacted by COVID-19, with interventions interrupted, reduced, eliminated or delivered differently (eg, in-person training moved online). Despite these challenges, progress against all KPIs was made. 93 posters were deployed across the hospital site, along with animated video 41% (233/565) of families recalled seeing OHP materials across the hospital site (KPI1). 737 children received STB (KPI2), averaging 35 children/month during the active project. Following STB, 96% participants stated they learnt something, and 94% committed to behaviour change. Finally, 73 staff members (KPI3) received oral health training. All people providing feedback (32/32) reported learning something new from the training session, with 84% (27/32) reporting that they would do things differently in the future.Results highlight the importance of flexibility and resilience when delivering QI projects under challenging conditions or unforeseen circumstances. While results suggest that hospital-based OHP is potentially an effective and equitable way to improve patient, family and staff knowledge of good oral health practices, future work is needed to understand if and how patients and staff put into practice the desired behaviour change and what impact this may have on oral health outcomes.

How do healthcare providers use national audit data for improvement?

BACKGROUND: Substantial resources are invested by Health Departments worldwide in introducing National Clinical Audits (NCAs). Yet, there is variable evidence on the NCAs' effectiveness and little is known on factors underlying the successful use of NCAs to improve local practice. This study will focus on a single NCA (the National Audit of Inpatient Falls -NAIF 2017) to explore: (i) participants' perspectives on the NCA reports, local feedback characteristics and actions undertaken following the feedback underpinning the effective use of the NCA feedback to improve local practice; (ii) reported changes in local practice following the NCA feedback in England and Wales. METHODS: Front-line staff perspectives were gathered through interviews. An inductive qualitative approach was used. Eighteen participants were purposefully sampled from 7 of the 85 participating hospitals in England and Wales. Analysis was guided by constant comparative techniques. RESULTS: Regarding the NAIF annual report, interviewees valued performance benchmarking with other hospitals, the use of visual representations and the inclusion of case studies and recommendations. Participants stated that feedback should target front-line healthcare professionals, be straightforward and focused, and be delivered through an encouraging and honest discussion. Interviewees highlighted the value of using other relevant data sources alongside NAIF feedback and the importance of continuous data monitoring. Participants reported that engagement of front-line staff in the NAIF and following improvement activities was critical. Leadership, ownership, management support and communication at different organisational levels were perceived as enablers, while staffing level and turnover, and poor quality improvement (QI) skills, were perceived as barriers to improvement. Reported changes in practice included increased awareness and attention to patient safety issues and greater involvement of patients and staff in falls prevention activities. CONCLUSIONS: There is scope to improve the use of NCAs by front-line staff. NCAs should not be seen as isolated interventions but should be fully embedded and integrated into the QI strategic and operational plans of NHS trusts. The use of NCAs could be optimised, but knowledge of them is poor and distributed unevenly across different disciplines. More research is needed to provide guidance on key elements to consider throughout the whole improvement process at different organisational levels.

Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Process mapping (PM) supports better understanding of complex systems and adaptation of improvement interventions to their local context. However, there is little research on its use in healthcare. This study (i) proposes a conceptual framework outlining quality criteria to guide the effective implementation, evaluation and reporting of PM in healthcare; (ii) reviews published PM cases to identify context and quality of PM application, and the reported benefits of using PM in healthcare. METHODS: We developed the conceptual framework by reviewing methodological guidance on PM and empirical literature on its use in healthcare improvement interventions. We conducted a systematic review of empirical literature using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) methodology. Inclusion criteria were: full text empirical study; describing the process through which PM has been applied in a healthcare setting; published in English. Databases searched are: Medline, Embase, HMIC-Health Management Information Consortium, CINAHL-Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus. Two independent reviewers extracted and analysed data. Each manuscript underwent line by line coding. The conceptual framework was used to evaluate adherence of empirical studies to the identified PM quality criteria. Context in which PM is used and benefits of using PM were coded using an inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: The framework outlines quality criteria for each PM phase: (i) preparation, planning and process identification, (ii) data and information gathering, (iii) process map generation, (iv) analysis, (v) taking it forward. PM is used in a variety of settings and approaches to improvement. None of the reviewed studies (N = 105) met all ten quality criteria; 7% were compliant with 8/10 or 9/10 criteria. 45% of studies reported that PM was generated through multi-professional meetings and 15% reported patient involvement. Studies highlighted the value of PM in navigating the complexity characterising healthcare improvement interventions. CONCLUSION: The full potential of PM is inhibited by variance in reporting and poor adherence to underpinning principles. Greater rigour in the application of the method is required. We encourage the use and further development of the proposed framework to support training, application and reporting of PM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero ID: CRD42017082140.

The use of process mapping in healthcare quality improvement projects.

Introduction Process mapping provides insight into systems and processes in which improvement interventions are introduced and is seen as useful in healthcare quality improvement projects. There is little empirical evidence on the use of process mapping in healthcare practice. This study advances understanding of the benefits and success factors of process mapping within quality improvement projects. Methods Eight quality improvement projects were purposively selected from different healthcare settings within the UK's National Health Service. Data were gathered from multiple data-sources, including interviews exploring participants' experience of using process mapping in their projects and perceptions of benefits and challenges related to its use. These were analysed using inductive analysis. Results Eight key benefits related to process mapping use were reported by participants (gathering a shared understanding of the reality; identifying improvement opportunities; engaging stakeholders in the project; defining project's objectives; monitoring project progress; learning; increased empathy; simplicity of the method) and five factors related to successful process mapping exercises (simple and appropriate visual representation, information gathered from multiple stakeholders, facilitator's experience and soft skills, basic training, iterative use of process mapping throughout the project). Conclusions Findings highlight benefits and versatility of process mapping and provide practical suggestions to improve its use in practice.