Coproducing a library of videos to support families caring for children with gastrostomies: A mixed-methods evaluation with family carers and clinicians.

INTRODUCTION: Many families now perform specialist medical procedures at home. Families need appropriate training and support to do this. The aim of this study was to evaluate a library of videos, coproduced with parents and healthcare professionals, to support and educate families caring for a child with a gastrostomy. METHODS: A mixed-methods online survey evaluating the videos was completed by 43 family carers who care for children with gastrostomies and 33 healthcare professionals (community-based nurses [n = 16], paediatricians [n = 6], dieticians [n = 6], hospital-based nurses [n = 4], paediatric surgeon [n = 1]) from the United Kingdom. Participants watched a sample of videos, rated statements on the videos and reflected on how the videos could be best used in practice. RESULTS: Both family carers and healthcare professionals perceived the video library as a valuable resource for parents and strongly supported the use of videos in practice. All healthcare professionals and 98% (n = 42) of family carers agreed they would recommend the videos to other families. Family carers found the videos empowering and easy to follow and valued the mixture of healthcare professionals and families featured in the videos. Participants gave clear recommendations for how different video topics should fit within the existing patient pathway. DISCUSSION: Families and healthcare professionals perceived the videos to be an extremely useful resource for parents, supporting them practically and emotionally. Similar coproduced educational materials are needed to support families who perform other medical procedures at home. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two parent representatives attended the research meetings from conception of the project and were involved in the design, conduct and dissemination of the surveys. The videos themselves were coproduced with several different families.

Training and support for caring for a child's gastrostomy: a survey with family carers.

Objective: The aim of this study was to explore family carers' experiences of training and ongoing support for caring for their child's gastrostomy, and to get their views on how this could be improved. Methods: A mixed-methods online survey with 146 family carers (eg, parents, grandparents) who care for a child with a gastrostomy. Family carers rated their own experience of training and support and made recommendations for how training and support could be improved for future families. Results: The nature and extent of the training family carers reported receiving varied considerably. Many felt that the demonstrations they received in hospital were too brief. Two in five family carers rated their confidence caring for their child's gastrostomy as very low in the first few weeks after surgery. Parents valued ongoing learning and support from other parents and support from community nurses. Videos and simulation practice were rated as useful formats of training, in addition to face-to-face supervised practice with a clinician. Parents liked how real life the example video shown was, and rated nearly all suggested video topics as 'very helpful', especially troubleshooting topics. Conclusions: Our study found substantial variability in family carers' descriptions of the training and support they received to care for their child's gastrostomy. Training often did not meet family carers' needs. We need to invest in better training and support for families and learn from their recommendations. Improvements to training and support for families (eg, through instructional videos) have the potential to improve family carers' confidence and competence, and reduce the risk of problems and complications which cause harm to children and increase demand on National Health Service (NHS) resources.

How to do no harm: empowering local leaders to make care safer in low-resource settings.

In a companion paper, we showed how local hospital leaders could assess systems and identify key safety concerns and targets for system improvement. In the present paper, we consider how these leaders might implement practical, low-cost interventions to improve safety. Our focus is on making immediate safety improvements both to directly improve patient care and as a foundation for advancing care in the longer-term. We describe a 'portfolio' approach to safety improvement in four broad categories: prioritising critical processes, such as checking drug doses; strengthening the overall system of care, for example, by introducing multiprofessional handovers; control of known risks, such as only using continuous positive airway pressure when appropriate conditions are met; and enhancing detection and response to hazardous situations, such as introducing brief team meetings to identify and respond to immediate threats and challenges. Local clinical leaders and managers face numerous challenges in delivering safe care but, if given sufficient support, they are nevertheless in a position to bring about major improvements. Skills in improving safety and quality should be recognised as equivalent to any other form of (sub)specialty training and as an essential element of any senior clinical or management role. National professional organisations need to promote appropriate education and provide coaching, mentorship and support to local leaders.

A Protocol is not Enough: Enhanced Recovery Program-Based Care and Clinician Adherence Associated with Shorter Stay After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials have shown an Enhanced Recovery Program (ERP) can shorten stay after colorectal surgery. Previous research has focused on patient compliance neglecting the role of care providers. National data on implementation and adherence to standardised care are lacking. We examined care organisation and delivery including the ERP, and correlated this with clinical outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire was administered to surgeons and nurses in August-October 2015. All English National Health Service Trusts providing elective colorectal surgery were invited. Responses frequencies and variation were examined. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to identify underlying features of care. Standardised factor scores were correlated with elective clinical outcomes of length of stay, mortality and readmission rates from 2013-15. RESULTS: 218/600 (36.3%) postal responses were received from 84/90 (93.3%) Trusts that agreed to participate. Combined with email responses, 301 surveys were analysed. 281/301 (93.4%) agreed or strongly agreed that they had a standardised, ERP-based care protocol. However, 182/301 (60.5%) indicated all consultants managed post-operative oral intake similarly. After factor analysis, higher hospital average ERP-based care standardisation and clinician adherence score were significantly correlated with reduced length of stay, as well as higher ratings of teamwork and support for complication management. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised, ERP-based care was near universal, but clinician adherence varied markedly. Units reporting higher levels of clinician adherence achieved the lowest length of stay. Having a protocol is not enough. Careful implementation and adherence by all of the team is vital to achieve the best results.

First do no harm: practitioners' ability to 'diagnose' system weaknesses and improve safety is a critical initial step in improving care quality.

Healthcare systems across the world and especially those in low-resource settings (LRS) are under pressure and one of the first priorities must be to prevent any harm done while trying to deliver care. Health care workers, especially department leaders, need the diagnostic abilities to identify local safety concerns and design actions that benefit their patients. We draw on concepts from the safety sciences that are less well-known than mainstream quality improvement techniques in LRS. We use these to illustrate how to analyse the complex interactions between resources and tools, the organisation of tasks and the norms that may govern behaviours, together with the strengths and vulnerabilities of systems. All interact to influence care and outcomes. To employ these techniques leaders will need to focus on the best attainable standards of care, build trust and shift away from the blame culture that undermines improvement. Health worker education should include development of the technical and relational skills needed to perform these system diagnostic roles. Some safety challenges need leadership from professional associations to provide important resources, peer support and mentorship to sustain safety work.

Analysis of paediatric long-term ventilation incidents in the community.

AIM: To describe the nature and causes of reported patient safety incidents relating to care in the community for children dependent on long-term ventilation with the further aim of improving safety. METHODS: We undertook an analysis of patient safety incident data relating to long-term ventilation in the community using incident reports from England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System occurring between January 2013 and December 2017. Manual screening by two authors identified 220 incidents which met the inclusion criteria. The free text for each report was descriptively analysed to identify the problems in the delivery of care, the contributory factors and the patient outcome. RESULTS: Common problems in the delivery of care included issues with faulty equipment and the availability of equipment, and concerns around staff competency. There was a clearly stated harm to the child in 89 incidents (40%). Contributory factors included staff shortages, out of hours care, and issues with packaging and instructions for equipment. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a range of problems relating to long-term ventilation in the community, some of which raise serious safety concerns. The provision of services to support children on long-term ventilation and their families needs to improve. Priorities include training of staff, maintenance and availability of equipment, support for families and coordination of care.

Reliability in the process of care during emergency general surgical admission: A prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency general surgery (EGS) is responsible for 80-90% of surgical in-hospital deaths and the early management of these unwell patients is critical to improving outcomes. Unfortunately care for EGS patients is often fragmented and important care processes are frequently omitted. METHODS: This study aimed to define a group of important processes during EGS admission and assess their reliability. Literature review and semi-structured interviews were used to define a draft list of processes, which was refined and validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. A prospective cohort study of the 22 included processes was performed in 315 patients across 5 acute hospitals. RESULTS: Prospective study of the 22 selected processes demonstrated omission of 1130/5668 (19.9%) processes. Only 6 (1.9%) patients had all relevant processes performed correctly. Administration of oxygen to hypoxic patients (82/129, 64%), consultant review (202/313, 65%) and administration of antibiotics within 3 h for patients with severe sepsis (41/60, 68%) were performed particularly poorly. There were significant differences in the mean number of omissions per patient between hospitals ( ANOVA: F = 11.008, p < 0.001) and this was strongly correlated with hospitals' median length of stay (Spearman's rho = 0.975, p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of admissions processes in this study was poor, with significant variability between hospitals. It is likely that improvements in process reliability would enhance EGS patients' outcomes. This will require engagement of the entire surgical team and the implementation of multiple interventions to improve the effectiveness of the admission phase of care.

Understanding how colorectal units achieve short length of stay: an interview survey among representative hospitals in England.

BACKGROUND: Wide variation in the outcomes of colorectal surgery persists, despite a well-established evidence-base to inform clinical practice. This variation may be attributed to differences in quality of care, but we do not know what this means in practical terms of care delivery. This telephone interview study aimed to identify distinguishing characteristics in the organisation of care among colorectal units with the best length of stay results in England. METHODS: Ten English National Health Service hospitals were identified with the shortest length of stay after elective colonic surgery between January 2011 and December 2012. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a senior colorectal surgeon and ward nurse, who were not informed of their performance, at each site. Audio recordings were professionally transcribed and thematically analysed for similarities and differences in practice between units. RESULTS: All ten short length of stay units approached agreed to participate, and 19 of 20 interviews were recorded. These units standardised clinical care based upon an Enhanced Recovery Program. Beyond this, they organised the clinical team to efficiently and reliably deliver this package of care, with the majority of day-to-day care delivered by consultants and nurses. Patients were closely monitored for postoperative deterioration, using a combination of early warning scores, nurses' clinical judgement and regular senior medical review. Of note, operative volume and laparoscopy rates in these units were not statistically significantly different from the national average (p = 0.509 and p = 0.131, respectively). The postoperative analgesic strategy varied widely between units, from routine epidural use to local anaesthetic infiltration or patient-controlled analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: The Enhanced Recovery Program may be seen as necessary but not sufficient to achieve the best length of stay results. In the study units, consultants and nurses led and delivered the majority of patient care on the ward. High quality teamwork helped detect and resolve clinical issues promptly, with nurses empowered to contact consultants directly if needed. Other units may learn from these teams by adopting protocol-based, consultant- or nurse-delivered care, and by improving coordination and communication between consultants and ward nurses.

Outlier identification in colorectal surgery should separate elective and nonelective service components.

BACKGROUND: The identification of health care institutions with outlying outcomes is of great importance for reporting health care results and for quality improvement. Historically, elective surgical outcomes have received greater attention than nonelective results, although some studies have examined both. Differences in outlier identification between these patient groups have not been adequately explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the identification of institutional outliers for mortality after elective and nonelective colorectal resection in England. DESIGN: This was a cohort study using routine administrative data. Ninety-day mortality was determined by using statutory records of death. Adjusted Trust-level mortality rates were calculated by using multiple logistic regression. High and low mortality outliers were identified and compared across funnel plots for elective and nonelective surgery. SETTINGS: All English National Health Service Trusts providing colorectal surgery to an unrestricted patient population were studied. PATIENTS: Adults admitted for colorectal surgery between April 2006 and March 2012 were included. INTERVENTION(S): Segmental colonic or rectal resection was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measured was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Included were 195,118 patients, treated at 147 Trusts. Ninety-day mortality rates after elective and nonelective surgery were 4% and 18%. No unit with high outlying mortality for elective surgery was a high outlier for nonelective mortality and vice versa. Trust level, observed-to-expected mortality for elective and nonelective surgery, was moderately correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.50, p< 0.001). LIMITATIONS: This study relied on administrative data and may be limited by potential flaws in the quality of coding of clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: Status as an institutional mortality outlier after elective and nonelective colorectal surgery was not closely related. Therefore, mortality rates should be reported for both patient cohorts separately. This would provide a broad picture of the state of colorectal services and help direct research and quality improvement activities.

Improving decision making in multidisciplinary tumor boards: prospective longitudinal evaluation of a multicomponent intervention for 1,421 patients.

BACKGROUND: Due to its complexity, cancer care is increasingly being delivered by multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs). Few studies have investigated how best to organize and run MTBs to optimize clinical decision making. We developed and evaluated a multicomponent intervention designed to improve the MTB's ability to reach treatment decisions. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective longitudinal study during 16 months that evaluated MTB decision making for urological cancer patients at a university hospital in London, UK. After a baseline period, MTB improvement interventions (eg, MTBs checklist, MTB team training, and written guidance) were delivered sequentially. Outcomes measures were the MTB's ability to reach a decision, the quality of information presentation, and the quality of teamwork (as assessed by trained assessors using a previously validated observational assessment tool). The efficacy of the intervention was evaluated using multivariate analyses. RESULTS: There were 1,421 patients studied between December 2009 and April 2, 2011. All outcomes improved considerably between baseline and intervention implementation: the MTB's ability to reach a decision rose from 82.2% to 92.7%, quality of information presentation rose from 29.6% to 38.3%, and quality of teamwork rose from 37.8% to 43.0%. The MTB's ability to reach a treatment decision was related to the quality of available information (r = 0.298; p < 0.05) and quality of teamwork within the MTB (r = 0.348; p < 0.05). The most common barriers to reaching clinical decisions were inadequate radiologic information (n = 77), inadequate pathologic information (n = 51), and inappropriate patient referrals (n = 21). CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary tumor board-delivered treatment is becoming the standard for cancer care worldwide. Our intervention is efficacious and applicable to MTBs and can improve decision making and expedite cancer care.

Surgical adverse events: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review is to quantify potentially preventable patient harm from the frequency, severity, and preventability of the consequences and causes of surgical adverse events to help target patient safety improvement efforts. DATA SOURCES: Two authors independently reviewed articles retrieved from systematic searches of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature databases for inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodology, and end points. All retrospective record review studies of adverse events were included. The primary end point was the frequency of general surgery adverse events. The secondary end points were the severity and preventability of consequences and causes. CONCLUSIONS: Fourteen record review studies incorporating 16,424 surgical patients were included. Adverse events occurred in 14.4% of patients (interquartile range [IQR], 12.5% to 20.1%), and potentially preventable adverse events occurred in 5.2% (IQR, 4.2% to 7.0%). The consequences of 3.6% of adverse events (IQR, 3.1% to 4.4%) were fatal, those of 10.4% (IQR, 8.5% to 12.3%) were severe, those of 34.2% (IQR, 29.2% to 39.2%) were moderate, and those of 52.5% (IQR, 49.8% to 55.3%) were minor. Errors in nonoperative management caused more frequent adverse events than errors in surgical technique.

Meeting the ambition of measuring the quality of hospitals' stroke care using routinely collected administrative data: a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential for using routinely collected administrative data to compare the quality and safety of stroke care at a hospital level, including evaluating any bias due to variations in coding practice. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of English hospitals' performance against six process and outcome indicators covering the acute care pathway. We used logistic regression to adjust the outcome measures for case mix. SETTING: Hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke patients (ICD-10 I60-I64) admitted to English National Health Service public acute hospitals between April 2009 and March 2010, accounting for 91 936 admissions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The quality and safety were measured using six indicators spanning the hospital care pathway, from timely access to brain scans to emergency readmissions following discharge after stroke. RESULTS: There were 182 occurrences of hospitals performing statistically differently from the national average at the 99.8% significance level across the six indicators. Differences in coding practice appeared to only partially explain the variation. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital administrative data provide a practical and achievable method for evaluating aspects of stroke care across the acute pathway. However, without improvements in coding and further validation, it is unclear whether the cause of the variation is the quality of care or the result of different local care pathways and data coding accuracy.

The medical student as a patient: attitudes towards involvement in the quality and safety of health care.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, factors that affect patients' willingness and ability to participate in safety-relevant behaviours have been investigated. However, how trained healthcare professionals or medical students would feel participating in safety-relevant behaviours as a patient in hospital remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To investigate medical students' willingness to participate in behaviours related to the quality and safety of their health care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional exploratory study using a survey that addressed willingness to participate in different behaviours recommended by current patient safety initiatives. Three types of interactional behaviours (asking factual or challenging questions, notifying doctors or nurses of errors/problems) and three non-interactional behaviours (choosing a hospital based on the safety record, bringing medicines and a list of allergies into hospital, and reporting an error to a national reporting system) were assessed. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and seventy-nine medical students from an inner city London teaching hospital participated in the study. FINDINGS: Students' willingness to participate was affected (P < 0.05) by the action required by the patient and (for interactional behaviours) whether the patient was engaging in the specific action with a doctor or nurse. Students were least willing to ask 'challenging' questions to doctors and nurses and to report errors to a national reporting system. Doctors' and nurses' encouragement appeared to increase self-reported willingness to participate in behaviours where baseline willingness was low. CONCLUSION: Similar to research on lay patient populations; medical students do not view involvement in safety-related behaviours equally. Interventions should be tailored at encouraging students to participate in behaviours they are less inclined to take on an active role in. Future research is required to examine students' motivations for participation in this important but heavily under-researched area.

Hospital patients' reports of medical errors and undesirable events in their health care.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate hospital patients' reports of undesirable events in their health care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mixed methods design. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 80 medical and surgical patients (mean age 58, 56 male). INTERVENTION: Patients were interviewed post-discharge using a survey to assess patient reports of errors or problems in their care. Patients' medical records and notes were also reviewed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of health care process problems, medical complications and interpersonal problems, and patient willingness to report an undesirable event in their care. RESULTS: In total, 258 undesirable events were reported (rate of 3.2 per person), including 136 interpersonal problems, 90 medical complications and 32 health care process problems. Patients identified a number of events that were reported in the medical records (30 out of 36). In addition, patients reported events that were not recorded in the medical records. Patients were more willing (P < 0.05) to report undesirable events to a researcher (as in the present case) than to a local or national reporting system. CONCLUSION: Patients appear able to report undesirable events that occur in their health care management over and above those that are recorded in their medical records. However, patients appear more willing to report these incidents for the purpose of a study rather than to an established incident reporting system. Interventions aimed at educating and encouraging patients about incident reporting systems need to be developed in order to enhance this important contribution patients could make to improving patient safety.

Patients' attitudes towards patient involvement in safety interventions: results of two exploratory studies.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, patient-focused interventions have been introduced aimed at increasing patient involvement in safety-related behaviours. However, patients' attitudes towards these interventions and comfort in participating in the recommended behaviours remain largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate patients' attitudes towards a video and leaflet aimed at encouraging patient involvement in safety-related behaviours. DESIGN: Two exploratory studies employing a within-subjects mixed-methods design. SETTING: Six hospital wards on an inner-city London teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Medical and surgical inpatients: 80 patients in study 1 (mean age 55; 69% men) and 80 patients in study 2 (mean age 52; 60% men). INTERVENTION: Patients watched the PINK patient safety video (study 1) or read the National Patient Safety Agency's 'Please Ask' about staying in hospital leaflet (study 2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived comfort in participating in safety-related behaviours; attitudes towards the video or leaflet. RESULTS: Both video and leaflet increased patients' perceived comfort in engaging in some (but not all) safety-related behaviours (P < 0.05). In both studies, the majority of patients questioned whether the intervention could help to reduce medical errors in health care. Suggestions on how the video/leaflet could be improved mainly related to content and layout. CONCLUSION: Video and leaflet could be effective at encouraging patient involvement in some safety-related behaviours. Further in-depth research on patients' attitudes towards different educational materials is required to help inform future policies and interventions in this very important but under-researched area.

An observational study of the frequency, severity, and etiology of failures in postoperative care after major elective general surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature of process failures in postoperative care, to assess their frequency and preventability, and to explore their relationship to adverse events. BACKGROUND: Adverse events are common and are frequently caused by failures in the process of care. These processes are often evaluated independently using clinical audit. There is little understanding of process failures in terms of their overall frequency, relative risk, and cumulative effect on the surgical patient. METHODS: Patients were observed daily from the first postoperative day until discharge by an independent surgeon. Field notes on the circumstances surrounding any nonroutine or atypical event were recorded. Field notes were assessed by 2 surgeons to identify failures in the process of care. Preventability, the degree of harm caused to the patient, and the underlying etiology of process failures were evaluated by 2 independent surgeons. RESULTS: Fifty patients undergoing major elective general surgery were observed for a total of 659 days of postoperative care. A total of 256 process failures were identified, of which 85% were preventable and 51% directly led to patient harm. Process failures occurred in all aspects of care, the most frequent being medication prescribing and administration, management of lines, tubes, and drains, and pain control interventions. Process failures accounted for 57% of all preventable adverse events. Communication failures and delays were the main etiologies, leading to 54% of process failures. CONCLUSIONS: Process failures are common in postoperative care, are highly preventable, and frequently cause harm to patients. Interventions to prevent process failures will improve the reliability of surgical postoperative care and have the potential to reduce hospital stay.