Valid consent in the acute hospital setting: perspectives of patients and members of the public.

BACKGROUND: People who interact with healthcare services have an ethical and legal right to control their own lives, to make informed decisions, and to consent to what happens to them. For consent to be considered ethically and legally valid, three key criteria must be met: consent must be given voluntarily; people must be sufficiently informed of all options; and people should have capacity to make the decision to give or withhold their consent. AIM: This study set out to explore, through the use of surveys, the perspectives of patients and public in relation to consent. METHOD: Surveys were developed for patients and the public and administered paper based (patients) and through social media (public). RESULTS: One hundred and forty surveys were posted to patients, with a 38% response rate; 104 responses were received from the public. Ninety-six percent of patients were satisfied that the decision they made was informed; 100% felt they had made a voluntary decision; 98% felt the clinician seemed knowledgeable about the procedure. What matters most to the public were being informed about the risks associated with the proposed procedure and being assured that whatever choice they make they will receive the best care possible. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight interesting similarities and differences in relation to consent between members of the public thinking about a possible treatment, surgery, or procedure and those patients who have actually been through the process in the past 12 months. Recommendations have been developed on the basis of these findings to co-design improvements in consent practices.

Exploring Safety Culture in the ICU of a Large Acute Teaching Hospital through Triangulating Different Data Sources.

Safety Culture (SC) has become a key priority for safety improvement in healthcare. Studies have identified links between positive SC and improved patient outcomes. Mixed-method measurements of SC are needed to account for diverse social, cultural, and subcultural contexts within different healthcare settings. The aim of the study was to triangulate data on SC from three sources in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in a large acute teaching hospital. A mixed-methods approach was used, including analysing the Hospital Survey for Patient Safety Culture results, retrospective chart reviews using the Global Trigger Tool (GTT) for the ICU, and staff reporting of adverse events (AE). There was a 47% (101/216) response rate for the survey. Further, 98% of respondents stated a positive patient safety rating. The GTT identified 16 AEs and 11 AEs that were reported in the same timeframe. The triangulation of the data demonstrates the complexity of understanding components of SC in particular: learning, reporting, and just culture.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient complaints within one Irish teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic dramatically impacted the delivery of hospital care in terms of quality and safety. OBJECTIVES: To examine complaints from two time points, quarter 4 (Q4) 2019 (pre-pandemic) and Q4 2020 (second wave), and explore whether there was a difference in the frequency and/or content of complaints. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of complaints from one Irish hospital was conducted using the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT). Within each complaint, the content, severity, harm reported by the patient, and stage of care were categorised. The complaints were analysed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests of independence. RESULTS: There were 146 complaints received in Q4 2019 and 114 in Q4 2020. Complaint severity was significantly higher in Q4 2019 as compared to Q4 2020. However, there were no other significant differences. Institutional processes (e.g. staffing, resources) were the most common reason for complaints (30% in Q4 2019 and 36% in Q4 2020). The majority of complaints were concerned with care on the ward (23% in Q4 2019 and 31% in Q4 2020). CONCLUSIONS: The severity of complaints was significantly higher in Q4 2019 than in Q4 2020, which requires further exploration as the reasons for this are unclear. The lack of a difference in the frequency and content of complaints during the two time periods was unexpected. However, this may be linked to a number of factors, including public support for the healthcare system, existing system-level issues in the hospital, or indeed increased staff collaboration in the context of the COVID-19 crisis.

An analysis of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Patients and family members make complaints about their hospital care in order to express their dissatisfaction with the care received and prompt quality improvement. Increasingly, it is being understood that these complaints could serve as important data on how to improve care if analysed using a standardized tool. The use of the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) for this purpose has emerged internationally for quality and safety improvement. Previous work has identified hot spots (areas in care where harm occurs frequently) and blind spots (areas in care that are difficult for staff members to observe) from complaints analysis. This study aimed to (i) apply the HCAT to a sample of complaints about hospital care in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) to identify hot spots and blind spots in care and (ii) compare the findings of this analysis to a previously published study on hospital complaints in the UK. METHODS: A sample of complaints was taken from 16 hospitals in the RoI in Quarter 4 of 2019 (n = 641). These complaints were coded using the HCAT to classify complaints by domain, category, severity, stage of care and harm. Chi-squared tests were used to identify hot spots, and logistic regression was used to identify blind spots. The findings of this study were compared to a previously published UK study that used HCAT to identify hot spots and blind spots. RESULTS: Hot spots were identified in Irish hospital complaints while patients were receiving care on the ward, during initial examination and diagnosis, and while they were undergoing operations or procedures. This aligned with hot spots identified in the UK study. Blind spots were found for systemic problems, where patients experience multiple issues across their care. CONCLUSIONS: Hot spots and blind spots for patient harm can be identified in hospital care using the HCAT analysis. These in turn could be used to inform improvement interventions, and direct stakeholders to areas that require urgent attention. This study also highlights the promise of the HCAT for use across different healthcare systems, with similar results emerging from the RoI and the UK.

Development and delivery of an allied health team intervention for older adults in the emergency department: A process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: There is encouraging evidence that interdisciplinary teams of Health and Social Care Professionals (HSCPs) can enhance patient care in the Emergency Department (ED), especially for older adults with complex needs. However, no formal process evaluations of implementations of ED-based HSCP interventions are available. The study aimed to evaluate the development and delivery of a HSCP team intervention for older adults in the ED of a large Irish teaching hospital. METHODS: Using the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for process evaluations, we investigated implementation and delivery, mechanisms of impact, and contextual influences on implementation by analysing the HSCP team's activity notes and participant recruitment logs, and by carrying out six interviews and four focus groups with 26 participants (HSCP team members, ED doctors and nurses, hospital staff). Qualitative insights were analysed thematically. RESULTS: The implementation process had three phases (pre-implementation, piloting, and delivery), with the first two described as pivotal to optimise care procedures and build positive stakeholders' involvement. The team's motivation and proactive communication were key to promote acceptability and integration in the ED (Theme 1); also, their specialised skills and interdisciplinary approach enhanced patient and staff's ED experience (Theme 2). The investment and collaboration of multiple stakeholders were described as essential contextual enablers of implementation (Theme 4). Delivering the intervention within a randomised controlled trial fostered credibility but caused frustration among patients and staff (Theme 3). DISCUSSION: This process evaluation is the first to provide in-depth and practical insights on the complexities of developing and delivering an ED-based HSCP team intervention for older adults. Our findings highlight the importance of establishing a team of HSCPs with a strong interdisciplinary ethos to ensure buy-in and integration in the ED processes. Also, actively involving relevant stakeholders is key to facilitate implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12th November 2018.

A socio-technical systems analysis of the application of RFID-enabled technology to the transport of precious laboratory samples in a large acute teaching hospital.

The scale and pace of improvement in patient safety in healthcare has been unacceptably slow. A paucity of research into the application of systems-thinking concepts and a failure to appreciate health systems complexity are cited as barriers to sustainable health systems improvement. This study reports on a socio-technical systems analysis, called the CUBE, of the characteristics of a large acute teaching hospital's system for the transport of precious specimens, a system enabled by radio-frequency identification tracking technology. The CUBE proved itself to be an effective analytic tool. The analysis provided a constructive framework to link diverse data and documentation; explicitly inviting consideration of the roles and understandings of different stakeholders; as well as broader cultural factors that could influence current or future activity. The analysis also supported recommendations to improve and extend operations. This study supports the argument for systems understanding and systems thinking being at the core of new approaches to patient safety.

A Case Study of a Whole System Approach to Improvement in an Acute Hospital Setting.

Changes in healthcare tend to be project-based with whole system change, which acknowledges the interconnectedness of socio-technical factors, not the norm. This paper attempts to address the question of whole system change posed by the special issue and brings together other research presented in this special issue. A case study approach was adopted to understand the deployment of a whole system change in the acute hospital setting along four dimensions of a socio-technical systems framework: culture, system functioning, action, and sense-making. The case study demonstrates evidence of whole system improvement. The approach to change was co-designed by staff and management, projects involving staff from all specialities and levels of seniority were linked to each other and to the strategic objectives of the organisation, and learnings from first-generation projects have been passed to second and third-generation process improvements. The socio-technical systems framework was used retrospectively to assess the system change but could also be used prospectively to help healthcare organisations develop approaches to whole system improvement.

Evaluation of an Access-Risk-Knowledge (ARK) Platform for Governance of Risk and Change in Complex Socio-Technical Systems.

Three key challenges to a whole-system approach to process improvement in health systems are the complexity of socio-technical activity, the capacity to change purposefully, and the consequent capacity to proactively manage and govern the system. The literature on healthcare improvement demonstrates the persistence of these problems. In this project, the Access-Risk-Knowledge (ARK) Platform, which supports the implementation of improvement projects, was deployed across three healthcare organisations to address risk management for the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs). In each organisation, quality and safety experts initiated an ARK project and participated in a follow-up survey and focus group. The platform was then evaluated against a set of fifteen needs related to complex system transformation. While the results highlighted concerns about the platform's usability, feedback was generally positive regarding its effectiveness and potential value in supporting HCAI risk management. The ARK Platform addresses the majority of identified needs for system transformation; other needs were validated in the trial or are undergoing development. This trial provided a starting point for a knowledge-based solution to enhance organisational governance and develop shared knowledge through a Community of Practice that will contribute to sustaining and generalising that change.

Impact of assessment and intervention by a health and social care professional team in the emergency department on the quality, safety, and clinical effectiveness of care for older adults: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults frequently attend the emergency department (ED) and experience high rates of adverse events following ED presentation. This randomised controlled trial evaluated the impact of early assessment and intervention by a dedicated team of health and social care professionals (HSCPs) in the ED on the quality, safety, and clinical effectiveness of care of older adults in the ED. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This single-site randomised controlled trial included a sample of 353 patients aged ≥65 years (mean age = 79.6, SD = 7.01; 59.2% female) who presented with lower urgency complaints to the ED a university hospital in the Mid-West region of Ireland, during HSCP operational hours. The intervention consisted of early assessment and intervention carried out by a HSCP team comprising a senior medical social worker, senior occupational therapist, and senior physiotherapist. The primary outcome was ED length of stay. Secondary outcomes included rates of hospital admissions from the ED; hospital length of stay for admitted patients; patient satisfaction with index visit; ED revisits, mortality, nursing home admission, and unscheduled hospital admission at 30-day and 6-month follow-up; and patient functional status and quality of life (at index visit and follow-up). Demographic information included the patient's gender, age, marital status, residential status, mode of arrival to the ED, source of referral, index complaint, triage category, falls, and hospitalisation history. Participants in the intervention group (n = 176) experienced a significantly shorter ED stay than the control group (n = 177) (6.4 versus 12.1 median hours, p < 0.001). Other significant differences (intervention versus control) included lower rates of hospital admissions from the ED (19.3% versus 55.9%, p < 0.001), higher levels of satisfaction with the ED visit (p = 0.008), better function at 30-day (p = 0.01) and 6-month follow-up (p = 0.03), better mobility (p = 0.02 at 30 days), and better self-care (p = 0.03 at 30 days; p = 0.009 at 6 months). No differences at follow-up were observed in terms of ED re-presentation or hospital admission. Study limitations include the inability to blind patients or ED staff to allocation due to the nature of the intervention, and a focus on early assessment and intervention in the ED rather than care integration following discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Early assessment and intervention by a dedicated ED-based HSCP team reduced ED length of stay and the risk of hospital admissions among older adults, as well as improving patient satisfaction. Our findings support the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary model of care for key ED outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03739515; registered on 12 November 2018.

Stakeholders' perspectives on models of care in the emergency department and the introduction of health and social care professional teams: A qualitative analysis using World Cafés and interviews.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that health and social care professional (HSCP) teams contribute to enhanced patient and process outcomes in increasingly crowded emergency departments (EDs), but the views of service users and providers on this model of care need investigation to optimize implementation. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study investigated the perspectives of key ED stakeholders about HSCP teams working in the ED. METHODS: Using a participatory design, we conducted World Café focus groups and individual interviews in two Irish hospital sites with 65 participants (purposive sampling) including ED patients and carers/relatives, ED doctors and nurses, HSCPs and pre-hospital staff. Data were thematically analysed using NVivo software. RESULTS: Participants reported that ED-based HSCP teams could improve quality and integration of care and staff experience (Theme 1) and would be appropriate for older adults with complex needs and non-urgent complaints (Theme 2). Concerns were raised about operational and relational barriers to implementation (Theme 3), and changes in processes and culture were considered necessary for HSCPs to work successfully in the ED (Theme 4). In contrast to service providers, service users' concerns centred on the importance of positive communication and relations (Theme 5). CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates potential acceptability of HSCP teams working in the ED, especially to care for older adults; however, operational and relational aspects, particularly developing interdisciplinary and integrated care, need addressing to ensure successful implementation. Differences in priorities between service users and providers (relational vs operational) highlighted the usefulness of gathering views from multiple stakeholders to understand ED processes.

A randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a dedicated health and social care professionals team in the emergency department on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older adults: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Older people are frequent emergency department (ED) users who present with complex issues that are linked to poorer health outcomes following the index visit, often have increased ED length of stay, and tend to have raised healthcare costs. Encouraging evidence suggests that ED teams involving health and social care professionals (HSCPs) can contribute to enhanced patient flow and an improved patient experience by improving care decision-making and thus promoting timely and effective care. However, the evidence supporting the impact of HSCP teams assessing and intervening with older adults in the ED is limited and identifies important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for more robust and comprehensive investigations of this model of care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a dedicated ED-based HSCP team on the quality, safety, and clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care of older adults when compared with usual care. METHODS: The study is a single-site randomised controlled trial whereby patients aged ≥65 years who present to the ED of a large Irish hospital will be randomised to the experimental group (ED-based HSCP assessment and intervention) or the control group (usual ED care). The recruitment target is 320 participants. The HSCP team will provide a comprehensive functional assessment as well as interventions to promote a safe discharge for the patient. The primary outcome is ED length of stay (from arrival to discharge). Secondary outcomes include: rates of hospital admissions from the ED, ED re-visits, unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare utilisation at 30 days, and 4 and 6 months of follow-up; patient functional status and quality of life (at baseline and follow-up); patient satisfaction; cost-effectiveness in terms of costs associated with ED-based HSCP compared with usual care; and perceptions on implementation by ED staff members. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled trial testing the impact of HSCPs working in teams in the ED on the quality, safety, and clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care for older patients. The findings of this study will provide important information on the effectiveness of this model of care for future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515 . Registered on 12 November 2018.

Impact of early assessment and intervention by teams involving health and social care professionals in the emergency department: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dedicated Health and Social Care Professional (HSCP) teams have been proposed for emergency departments (EDs) in an effort to improve patient and process outcomes. This systematic review synthesises the totality of evidence relating to the impact of early assessment and intervention by HSCP teams on quality, safety and effectiveness of care in the ED. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in April 2019 to identify experimental studies examining the effectiveness of ED-based HSCP teams providing services to adults aged ≥ 18 years old and including two or more of the following disciplines: occupational therapist, physiotherapist, medical social worker, clinical pharmacist, or speech and language therapist. Data extraction and quality appraisal of each study were conducted independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: Six studies were included in the review (n = 273,886), all describing interdisciplinary Care Coordination Teams (CCTs) caring for adults aged ≥ 65 years old. CCT care was associated with on average 2% reduced rates of hospital admissions (three studies), improved referrals to community services for falls (one study), increased satisfaction (two studies) with the safety of discharge (patients and staff), and with the distribution of workload (staff), improved health-related quality of care (one study). No statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups emerged in terms of rates of ED re-visits, ranging between 0.2% and 3% (two studies); hospital length of stay (one hour difference noted in one study) or mortality rates (0.5% difference in one study). Increased rates of unplanned hospitalisations following the intervention (13.9% difference) were reported in one study. The methodological quality of the studies was mixed. DISCUSSION: We found limited and heterogeneous evidence on the impact of HSCP teams in the ED, suggesting a reduction in hospital admissions as well as improved patient and staff satisfaction. More robust investigations including cost-effectiveness evaluations are needed.

Implementing an allied health team intervention to improve the care of older adults in the emergency department: protocol for a process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Health and social care professionals (HSCPs) have increasingly contributed to enhance the care of patients in emergency departments (EDs), particularly for older adults who are frequent ED attendees with significant adverse outcomes. For the first time, the effectiveness of a HSCP team intervention for older adults in the ED has been tested in a large randomised controlled trial (Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03739515), providing an opportunity to explore the implementation process for this type of intervention. This protocol describes a process evaluation that will to investigate the implementation, delivery and impact of an HSCP team intervention in the ED. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Medical Research Council Framework for process evaluations, we will employ a mixed-methods approach to provide a description of the process of implementation and delivery of the HSCP intervention in the ED, evaluate its fidelity, dose and reach and explore the perceptions of key staff members in relations to the mechanisms and contexts of impact at the levels of individuals, physical environment, operations, communication and the broader hospital and healthcare system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was received from the HSE Mid-Western Regional Hospital Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 103/18). All participants will be invited to read and sign a written consent form prior to participation. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences.

Developing outcome, process and balancing measures for an emergency department longitudinal patient monitoring system using a modified Delphi.

BACKGROUND: Early warning score systems have been widely recommended for use to detect clinical deterioration in patients. The Irish National Emergency Medicine Programme has developed and piloted an emergency department specific early warning score system. The objective of this study was to develop a consensus among frontline healthcare staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers regarding evaluation measures for an early warning score system in the Emergency Department. METHODS: Participatory action research including a modified Delphi consensus building technique with frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff, health systems researchers, local and national emergency medicine stakeholders was the method employed in this study. In Stage One, a workshop was held with the participatory action research team including frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers to gather suggestions regarding the evaluation measures. In Stage Two, an electronic modified-Delphi study was undertaken with a panel consisting of the workshop participants, key local and national emergency medicine stakeholders. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of the panellists who completed the questionnaires in each round. The mean Likert rating, standard deviation and 95% bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence interval for each variable was calculated. Bonferroni corrections were applied to take account of multiple testing. Data were analysed using Stata 14.0 SE. RESULTS: Using the Institute for Healthcare Improvement framework, 12 process, outcome and balancing metrics for measuring the effectiveness of an ED-specific early warning score system were developed. CONCLUSION: There are currently no published measures for evaluating the effectiveness of an ED early warning score system. It was possible in this study to develop a suite of evaluation measures using a modified Delphi consensus approach. Using the collective expertise of frontline hospital staff, quality and safety staff and health systems researchers to develop and categorise the initial set of potential measures was an innovative and unique element of this study.

Effectiveness of early assessment and intervention by interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals in the emergency department: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Finding cost-effective strategies to improve patient care in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing imperative given growing numbers of ED attendees. Encouraging evidence indicates that interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals (HSCPs) enhance patient care across a variety of healthcare settings. However, to date no systematic reviews of the effectiveness of early assessment and/or interventions carried by such teams in the ED exist. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of early assessment and/or intervention carried out by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care, and to define the content of the assessment and/or intervention offered by HSCPs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standardised guidelines, we will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series and repeated measures studies that report the impact of early assessment and/or intervention provided to adults aged 18+ by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED. Searches will be carried in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE from inception to March 2018. We will also hand-search the reference lists of relevant studies. Following a two-step screening process, two independent reviewers will extract data on the type of population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design. The quality of the studies will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The findings will be synthesised in a narrative summary, and a meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be sought since it is not required for systematic reviews. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018091794.

Using Co-Design to Develop a Collective Leadership Intervention for Healthcare Teams to Improve Safety Culture.

While co-design methods are becoming more popular in healthcare; there is a gap within the peer-reviewed literature on how to do co-design in practice. This paper addresses this gap by delineating the approach taken in the co-design of a collective leadership intervention to improve healthcare team performance and patient safety culture. Over the course of six workshops healthcare staff, patient representatives and advocates, and health systems researchers collaboratively co-designed the intervention. The inputs to the process, exercises and activities that took place during the workshops and the outputs of the workshops are described. The co-design method, while challenging at times, had many benefits including grounding the intervention in the real-world experiences of healthcare teams. Implications of the method for health systems research are discussed.