Rapid evaluation of the Special Measures for Quality and challenged provider regimes: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Health-care organisations in England that are rated as inadequate for leadership and one other domain enter the Special Measures for Quality regime to receive support and oversight. A 'watch list' of challenged providers that are at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality also receive support. Knowledge is limited about whether or not the support interventions drive improvements in quality, the costs of the support interventions and whether or not the support interventions strike the right balance between support and scrutiny. Objective: To analyse the responses of trusts to the implementation of (1) interventions for Special Measures for Quality trusts and (2) interventions for challenged provider trusts to determine their impact on these organisations' capacity to achieve and sustain quality improvements. Design: This was rapid research comprising five interrelated workstreams: (1) a literature review using systematic methods; (2) an analysis of policy documents and interviews at the national level; (3) eight multisite, mixed-methods trust case studies; (4) an analysis of national performance and workforce indicators; and (5) an economic analysis. Results: The Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were intended to be 'support' programmes. Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes had an emotional impact on staff. Perceptions of NHS Improvement interventions were mixed overall. Senior leadership teams were a key driver of change, with strong clinical input being vital. Local systems have a role in improvement. Trusts focus efforts to improve across multiple domains. Internal and external factors contribute to positive performance trajectories. Nationally, only 15.8% of Special Measures for Quality trusts exited the regime in 24 months. Entry into Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes resulted in changes in quality indicators (such the number of patients waiting in emergency departments for more than 4 hours, mortality and the number of delayed transfers of care) that were more positive than national trends. The trends in staff sickness and absence improved after trusts left Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes. There was some evidence that staff survey results improved. No association was found between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes and referral to treatment times or cancer treatment waiting times. NHS Improvement spending in case study trusts was mostly directed at interventions addressing 'training on cultural change' (33.6%), 'workforce quality and safety' (21.7%) and 'governance and assurance' (18.4%). The impact of Special Measures for Quality on financial stability was equivocal; most trusts exiting Special Measures for Quality experienced the same financial stability before and after exiting. Limitations: The rapid research design and 1-year time frame precludes longitudinal observations of trusts and local systems. The small number of indicators limited the quantitative analysis of impact. Measurement of workforce effects was limited by data availability. Conclusions: Empirical evidence of positive impacts of Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were identified; however, perceptions were mixed. Key lessons were that (1) time is needed to implement and embed changes; (2) ways to mitigate emotional costs and stigma are needed; (3) support strategies should be more trust specific; (4) poor organisational performance needs to be addressed within local systems; (5) senior leadership teams with stability, strong clinical input and previous Special Measures for Quality experience helped to enact change; (6) organisation-wide quality improvement strategies and capabilities are needed; (7) staff engagement and an open-listening culture promote continuous learning and a quality improvement 'mindset', which is critical for sustainable improvement; and (8) consideration of the level of sustainable funds required to improve patients' outcomes is needed. Future work: Future work could include evaluating recent changes to the regimes, the role of local systems and longitudinal approaches. Study registration: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131024). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

When health-care trusts in England have serious failings in the quality of care that they provide, they can be placed in 'Special Measures for Quality' and receive additional support from the NHS. There is also a list of 'challenged providers' at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality that receive support. In January 2019, of the 234 trusts in England, one-quarter had at some point been a challenged provider and/or entered Special Measures for Quality. We studied how trusts responded to entering the Special Measures for Quality or challenged provider regimes. We wanted to understand if the support that the trusts receive can help the trust to improve the quality of care provided to patients. We did this by reviewing the relevant literature; speaking to a range of staff in eight trusts and nearby health organisations; analysing costs; and observing meetings in four of these trusts. We also compared national performance information between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts and non-Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts. We found that when a trust enters the Special Measures for Quality regime there is often an emotional impact on staff, who may experience low morale. Some staff thought that their trust received the right type of support, but others saw Special Measures for Quality as heavy-handed scrutiny or punishment. With hindsight, Special Measures for Quality was sometimes viewed more positively, as a pathway to make changes that were needed. Looking at all trusts in England, we found that when trusts entered Special Measures for Quality or became challenged providers they started to get better at seeing emergency department patients within 4 hours and reduced avoidable deaths. We also found that some parts of the staff survey results improved. We found that staff need time and space to make changes. Looking after staff and having a leadership and culture that supports continuous learning are important for making improvements. Regional health-care systems and local organisations have an important role to play in supporting trusts to make improvements.

How is primary care access changing? A retrospective, repeated cross-sectional study of patient-initiated demand at general practices in England using a modern access model, 2019-2022.

OBJECTIVES: To explore trends in patient-initiated requests for general practice services and the association between patient characteristics including demographics, preferences for care and clinical needs and modes of patient contact (online vs telephone), and care delivery (face-to-face vs remote) at practices using a modern access model. DESIGN: Retrospective repeated cross-sectional study spanning March 2019 to February 2022. SETTING: General practices in England using the askmyGP online consultation system to implement a modern general practice access model using digital and non-digital (multimodal) access pathways and digitally supported triage to manage patient-initiated requests. PARTICIPANTS: 10 435 465 patient-initiated requests from 1 488 865 patients at 154 practices. RESULTS: Most requests were initiated online (72.1% in 2021/2022) rather than by telephone. Online users were likely to be female, younger than 45 years, asking about existing medical problems, had used the system before and frequent attenders (familiar patients). During the pandemic, request rates for face-to-face consultations fell while those for telephone consultations and online messages increased, with telephone consultations being most popular (53.8% in 2021/2022). Video was seldom requested. More than 60% of requests were consistently delivered in the mode requested. Face-to-face consultations were more likely to be used for the youngest and oldest patients, new medical problems, non-frequent attenders (unfamiliar patients) and those who requested a face-to-face consultation. Over the course of the study, request rates for patients aged over 44 years increased, for example, by 15.4% (p<0.01) for patients aged over 74 years. Rates for younger patients decreased by 32.6% (p<0.001) in 2020/2021, compared with 2019/2020, before recovering to prepandemic levels in 2021/2022. CONCLUSIONS: Demand patterns shed light on the characteristics of patients making requests for general practice services and the composition of the care backlog with implications for policy and practice. A modern general practice access model can be used effectively to manage patient-initiated demand.

'Maze' not pathway: focus group exploration of patients' and public experiences of the UK NHS elective total joint arthroplasty pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient and public perceptions of planned improvements to the National Health Service (NHS) total joint arthroplasty (TJA) pathway. DESIGN: Three qualitative focus groups undertaken March-May 2018, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of Getting It Right First Time. Transcripts were subject to framework analysis to identify thematic content between October 2018 and October 2021. SETTING: Elective TJA surgery in the English NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Two focus groups including patients who had undergone TJA in the previous 2 years (group 1: n=5; group 2: n=4) and the other individuals who had not but were aged 60+ (group 3: n=5). Participants were recruited via community groups and patient panels. RESULTS: Fourteen individuals took part in the focus groups; all were aged over 60; seven (50%) were female and nine (64%) had undergone TJA surgery. Participants' perspectives were categorised into themes and mapped onto stages of the TJA pathway. Although perioperative care is often the focus of improvement efforts, participants argued that the patient journey begins before individuals present to primary care. Participants had concerns about other aspects of the pathway, such as obtaining a surgical referral, with prereferral interventions aimed at potentially avoiding the need for surgery (ie, physiotherapy) being perceived as a mechanism to restrict access to secondary care. Patient experience was also conceptualised as a 'maze', rather than the logical, sequential process set out in clinical guidelines; exacerbated by a lack of information, knowledge and power imbalances. CONCLUSION: The linear conceptualisation of the TJA pathway is at odds with patient experience. Improvement programmes focused on perioperative care fail to consider patient concerns and priorities. Patients should be directly involved in improvement programmes, to ensure that patient experience is optimised, as well as informing related processes and important outcomes of care.

Youth violence intervention programme for vulnerable young people attending emergency departments in London: a rapid evaluation.

Background: Youth violence intervention programmes involving the embedding of youth workers in NHS emergency departments to help young people (broadly aged between 11 and 24 years) improve the quality of their lives following their attendance at an emergency department as a result of violent assault or associated trauma are increasing across the NHS. This study evaluates one such initiative run by the charity Redthread in partnership with a NHS trust. Objectives: To evaluate the implementation and impact of a new youth violence intervention programme at University College London Hospital NHS Trust and delivered by the charity Redthread: (1) literature review of studies of hospital-based violent crime interventions; (2) evaluation of local implementation and of University College London Hospital staff and relevant local stakeholders concerning the intervention and its impact; (3) assessment of the feasibility of using routine secondary care data to evaluate the impact of the Redthread intervention; and (4) cost-effectiveness analysis of the Redthread intervention from the perspective of the NHS. Methods: The evaluation was designed as a mixed-methods multiphased study, including an in-depth process evaluation case study and quantitative and economic analyses. The project was undertaken in different stages over two years, starting with desk-based research and an exploratory phase suitable for remote working while COVID-19 was affecting NHS services. A total of 22 semistructured interviews were conducted with staff at Redthread and University College London Hospital and others (e.g. a senior stakeholder involved in NHS youth violence prevention policy). We analysed Redthread documents, engaged with experts and conducted observations of staff meetings to gather more in-depth insights about the effectiveness of the intervention, the processes of implementation, staff perceptions and cost. We also undertook quantitative analyses to ascertain suitable measures of impact to inform stakeholders and future evaluations. Results: Redthread's service was viewed as a necessary intervention, which complemented clinical and other statutory services. It was well embedded in the paediatric emergency department and adolescent services but less so in the adult emergency department. The diverse reasons for individual referrals, the various routes by which young people were identified, and the mix of specific support interventions provided, together emphasised the complexity of this intervention, with consequent challenges in implementation and evaluation. Given the relative unit costs of Redthread and University College London Hospital's inpatient services, it is estimated that the service would break even if around one-third of Redthread interventions resulted in at least one avoided emergency inpatient admission. This evaluation was unable to determine a feasible approach to measuring the quantitative impact of Redthread's youth violence intervention programme but has reflected on data describing the service, including costs, and make recommendations to support future evaluation. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic severely hampered the implementation of the Redthread service and the ability to evaluate it. The strongest options for analysis of effects and costs were not possible due to constraints of the consent process, problems in linking Redthread and University College London Hospital patient data and the relatively small numbers of young people having been engaged for longer-term support over the evaluation period. Conclusions: We have been able to contribute to the qualitative evidence on the implementation of the youth violence intervention programme at University College London Hospital, showing, for example, that NHS staff viewed the service as an important and needed intervention. In the light of problems with routine patient data systems and linkages, we have also been able to reflect on data describing the service, including costs, and made recommendations to support future evaluation. Future work: No future work is planned. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme (RSET: 16/138/17).

Youth violence intervention programmes in the NHS embed specialist youth workers into a hospital's paediatric emergency departments. These staff can engage young people and encourage positive change in their lives. Youth violence intervention programmes are part of a broader national strategy to prevent violence among young people. To improve our knowledge of the impact on young people and the cost-effectiveness of youth violence intervention programmes, we carried out an evaluation of a youth violence intervention programme introduced in 2020 at University College London Hospital and run by the charity Redthread. We reviewed the international evidence on youth violence intervention programmes, and other studies of Redthread services but found few studies measuring impact within the NHS. We reviewed documents and conducted 22 interviews with University College London Hospital and Redthread staff among others. We found that the service is viewed positively by NHS staff. We also found that youth workers can help a young person to better engage in their medical care and treatment. Youth violence intervention programmes also provide a link with non­health-care services within the community. Overall, they help NHS staff to better support vulnerable young people following discharge from hospital. We also established the cost of delivering Redthread services per user was £1865. This compares with a cost per inpatient of £5789 for a group of patients similar to those helped by Redthread. The average cost of a Redthread-type patient attending the emergency department was £203. We looked at whether it was possible to measure whether Redthread reduced young people's re-admissions to the hospital's emergency departments. However, we concluded that fully answering this question was not possible over the timescale of the project. This was because of the impact of COVID-19 on Redthread and other paediatric services, the low numbers of young people engaged in a longer-term programme with Redthread (59) and difficulties with linking information from the hospital and Redthread. We have therefore made various recommendations in this report to improve the way that data are collected and linked to aid future evaluations.

Consultation Rate and Mode by Deprivation in English General Practice From 2018 to 2022: Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on primary care service delivery with an increased use of remote consultations. With general practice delivering record numbers of appointments and rising concerns around access, funding, and staffing in the UK National Health Service, we assessed contemporary trends in consultation rate and modes (ie, face-to-face versus remote). OBJECTIVE: This paper describes trends in consultation rates in general practice in England for key demographics before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. We explore the use of remote and face-to-face consultations with regard to socioeconomic deprivation to understand the possible effect of changes in consultation modes on health inequalities. METHODS: We did a retrospective analysis of 9,429,919 consultations by general practitioners, nurses, or other health care professionals between March 2018 and February 2022 for patients registered at 397 general practices in England. We used routine electronic health records from Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum with linkage to national data sets. Negative binomial models were used to predict consultation rates and modes (ie, remote versus face-to-face) by age, sex, and socioeconomic deprivation over time. RESULTS: Overall consultation rates increased by 15% from 4.92 in 2018-2019 to 5.66 in 2021-2022 with some fluctuation during the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. The breakdown into face-to-face and remote consultations shows that the pandemic precipitated a rapid increase in remote consultations across all groups, but the extent varies by age. Consultation rates increased with increasing levels of deprivation. Socioeconomic differences in consultation rates, adjusted for sex and age, halved during the pandemic (from 0.36 to 0.18, indicating more consultations in the most deprived), effectively narrowing relative differences between deprivation quintiles. This trend remains when stratified by sex, but the difference across deprivation quintiles is smaller for men. The most deprived saw a relatively larger increase in remote and decrease in face-to-face consultation rates compared to the least deprived. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial increases in consultation rates observed in this study imply an increased pressure on general practice. The narrowing of consultation rates between deprivation quintiles is cause for concern, given ample evidence that health needs are greater in more deprived areas.

Implementation of the national Getting it Right First Time orthopaedic programme in England: a qualitative case study analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the implementation and impact of the Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) national orthopaedic improvement programme at the level of individual National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies conducted at six NHS Trusts, as part of a mixed-methods evaluation of GIRFT. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 59 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle, including bespoke routine performance data and improvement recommendations for each organisation, delivered via 'deep-dive' visits to NHS Trusts by a senior orthopaedic clinician. RESULTS: Although all case study sites had made improvements to care, very few of these were reportedly a direct consequence of GIRFT. A range of factors, operating at three different levels, influenced their ability to implement GIRFT recommendations: at the level of the orthopaedic team (micro-eg, how individuals perceived the intervention); the wider Trust (meso-eg, competition for theatre/bed space) and the health economy more broadly (macro-eg, requirements to form local networks). Some sites used GIRFT evidence to support arguments for change which helped cement and formalise existing plans. However, where GIRFT measures were not a Trust priority because of more immediate demands-for example, financial and bed pressures-it was less likely to influence change. CONCLUSION: Dynamic relationships between the different contextual factors, within and between the three levels, can impact the effectiveness of a large-scale improvement intervention and may account for variations in implementation outcomes in different settings. When designing an intervention, those leading future improvement programmes should consider how it sits in relation to these three contextual levels and the interactions that may occur between them.

The Impact of Digital Health Interventions for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes on Health and Social Care Utilisation and Costs: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital health interventions such as smartphone applications (mHealth) or Internet resources (eHealth) are increasingly used to improve the management of chronic conditions, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus. These digital health interventions can augment or replace traditional health services and may be paid for using healthcare budgets. While the impact of digital health interventions for the management of type 2 diabetes on health outcomes has been reviewed extensively, less attention has been paid to their economic impact. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to critically review existing literature on the impact of digital health interventions for the management of type 2 diabetes on health and social care utilisation and costs. METHODS: Studies that assessed the impact on health and social care utilisation of digital health interventions for type 2 diabetes were included in the study. We restricted the digital health interventions to information provision, self-management and behaviour management. Four databases were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and EconLit) for articles published between January 2010 and March 2021. The studies were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach. The risk of bias and reporting quality were appraised using the ROBINS-I checklist. RESULTS: The review included 22 studies. Overall, studies reported mixed evidence on the impact of digital health interventions on health and social care utilisation and costs, and suggested this impact differs according to the healthcare utilisation component. For example, digital health intervention use was associated with lower medication use and fewer outpatient appointments, whereas evidence on general practitioner visits and inpatient admissions was mixed. Most reviewed studies focus on a single component of healthcare utilisation. CONCLUSIONS: The review shows no clear evidence of an impact of digital health interventions on health and social care utilisation or costs. Further work is needed to assess the impact of digital health interventions across a broader range of care utilisation components and settings, including social and mental healthcare services. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO before searches began in April 2021 (registration number: CRD42020172621).

Mixed methods evaluation of the Getting it Right First Time programme in elective orthopaedic surgery in England: an analysis from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the 'Getting it Right First Time' (GIRFT) national improvement programme in orthopaedics, which started in 2012. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study comprising statistical analysis of linked national datasets (National Joint Registry; Hospital Episode Statistics; Patient-Reported Outcomes); economic analysis and qualitative case studies in six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. SETTING: NHS elective orthopaedic surgery in England. PARTICIPANTS: 736 088 patients who underwent primary hip or knee replacement at 126 NHS Trusts between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2018, plus 50 NHS staff. INTERVENTION: Improvement bundle including 'deep dive' visits by senior clinician to NHS Trusts, informed by bespoke set of routine performance data, to discuss how improvements could be made locally. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of procedures conducted by low volume surgeons; use of uncemented hip implants in patients >65; arthroscopy in year prior to knee replacement; hospital length of stay; emergency readmissions within 30 days; revision surgery within 1 year; health-related quality of life and functional status. RESULTS: National trends demonstrated substantial improvements beginning prior to GIRFT. Between 2012 and 2018, there were reductions in procedures by low volume surgeons (ORs (95% CI) hips 0.58 (0.53 to 0.63), knees 0.77 (0.72 to 0.83)); uncemented hip prostheses in >65 s (OR 0.56 (0.51 to 0.61)); knee arthroscopies before surgery (OR 0.48 (0.41 to 0.56)) and mean length of stay (hips -0.90 (-1.00 to -0.81), knees -0.74 days (-0.82 to -0.66)). The additional impact of visits was mixed and comprised an overall economic saving of £431 848 between 2012 and 2018, but this was offset by the costs of the visits. Staff reported that GIRFT's influence ranged from procurement changes to improved regional collaboration. CONCLUSION: Nationally, we found substantial improvements in care, but the specific contribution of GIRFT cannot be reliably estimated due to other concurrent initiatives. Our approach enabled additional analysis of the discrete impact of GIRFT visits.

The Special Measures for Quality and Challenged Provider Regimes in the English NHS: A Rapid Evaluation of a National Improvement Initiative for Failing Healthcare Organisations.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge about interventions used for the improvement of low-performing healthcare organisations and their unintended consequences. Our evaluation sought to understand how healthcare organisations in the National Health Service (NHS) in England responded to a national improvement initiative (the Special Measures for Quality [SMQ] and challenged provider [CP] regimes) and its perceived impact on achieving quality improvements (QIs). METHODS: Our evaluation included national-level interviews with key stakeholders involved in the delivery of SMQ (n=6); documentary analysis (n=20); and a qualitative study based on interviews (n=60), observations (n=8) and documentary analysis (n=291) in eight NHS case study sites. The analysis was informed by literature on failure, turnaround and QI in organisations in the public sector. RESULTS: At the policy level, SMQ/CP regimes were intended to be "support" programmes, but perceptions of the interventions at hospital level were mixed. The SMQ/CP regimes tended to consider failure at an organisational level and turnaround was visualised as a linear process. There was a negative emotional impact reported by staff, especially in the short-term. Key drivers of change included: engaged senior leadership teams, strong clinical input and supportive external partnerships within local health systems. Trusts focused efforts to improve across multiple domains with particular investment in improving overall staff engagement, developing an open, listening organisational culture and better governance to ensure clinical safety and reporting. CONCLUSION: Organisational improvement in healthcare requires substantial time to embed and requires investment in staff to drive change and cultivate QI capabilities at different tiers. The time this takes may be underestimated by external 'turn-around' interventions and performance regimes designed to improve quality in the short-term and which come at an emotional cost for staff. Shifting an improvement focus to the health system or regional level may promote sustainable improvement across multiple organisations over the long-term.

Optimising Exome Prenatal Sequencing Services (EXPRESS): a study protocol to evaluate rapid prenatal exome sequencing in the NHS Genomic Medicine Service.

Background: Prenatal exome sequencing (ES) for the diagnosis of fetal anomalies was implemented nationally in England in October 2020 by the NHS Genomic Medicine Service (GMS). is the GMS is based around seven regional Genomic Laboratory Hubs (GLHs). Prenatal ES has the potential to significantly improve NHS prenatal diagnostic services by increasing genetic diagnoses and informing prenatal decision-making. Prenatal ES has not previously been offered routinely in a national healthcare system and there are gaps in knowledge and guidance. Methods: Our mixed-methods evaluation commenced in October 2020, aligning with the start date of the NHS prenatal ES service . Study design draws on a framework developed in previous studies of major system innovation. There are five interrelated workstreams. Workstream-1 will use interviews and surveys with professionals, non-participant observations and documentary analysis to produce in-depth case studies across all GLHs. Data collection at multiple time points will track changes over time. In Workstream-2 qualitative interviews with parents offered prenatal ES will explore experiences and establish information and support needs. Workstream-3 will analyse data from all prenatal ES tests for nine-months to establish service outcomes (e.g. diagnostic yield, referral rates, referral sources). Comparisons between GLHs will identify factors (individual or service-related) associated with any variation in outcomes. Workstream-4 will identify and analyse practical ethical problems. Requirements for an effective ethics framework for an optimal and equitable service will be determined. Workstream-5 will assess costs and cost-effectiveness of prenatal ES versus standard tests and evaluate costs of implementing an optimal prenatal ES care pathway. Integration of findings will determine key features of an optimal care pathway from a service delivery, parent and professional perspective. Discussion: The proposed formative and summative evaluation will inform the evolving prenatal ES service to ensure equity of access, high standards of care and benefits for parents across England.

BACKGROUND: Prenatal exome sequencing is a new test that is offered through the NHS Genomic Medicine Service. Prenatal exome sequencing is offered to pregnant women when ultrasound scans suggest that their baby may have a genetic condition that cannot be diagnosed using standard tests. If a genetic condition is diagnosed this can give parents important information about the outlook for their baby. It can also help with their decisions about whether to continue or end the pregnancy, pregnancy management, post-birth care and future pregnancies. STUDY METHODS: The aim of this study is to evaluate the prenatal exome sequencing service. To do this we will; 1. Study how prenatal exome sequencing is delivered across England using surveys and interviews with professionals.2. Interview parents to ask what they think of prenatal exome sequencing and how support and information could be improved3. Look at how many parents have prenatal exome sequencing and the test results. We will look carefully at who has access to the test and whether any particular groups are less likely to be offered testing.4. Conduct workshops with health professionals and parents to identify any practical or ethical problems that arise when prenatal exome sequencing is offered.5. Look at the cost of prenatal exome sequencing and compare it to the cost of other tests that are offered to diagnose genetic conditions in pregnancy.6. Gather our findings together to make recommendations for best practice. Patient and Public Involvement: A patient and public Involvement, engagement and participation (PPIEP) advisory group will work closely with the research team to design the study and develop study materials. They will also help us understand our findings to make sure the information and recommendations that come out of our research will be helpful to parents and the NHS.

The Implementation of Improvement Interventions for "Low Performing" and "High Performing" Organisations in Health, Education and Local Government: A Phased Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: There is limited understanding about whether and how improvement interventions are effective in supporting failing healthcare organisations and improving the quality of care in high-performing organisations. The aim of this review was to examine the underlying concepts guiding the design of interventions aimed at low and high performing healthcare organisations, processes of implementation, unintended consequences, and their impact on costs and quality of care. The review includes articles in the healthcare sector and other sectors such as education and local government. METHODS: We carried out a phased rapid systematic review of the literature. Phase one was used to develop a theoretical framework of organisational failure and turnaround, and the types of interventions implemented to improve quality. The framework was used to inform phase 2, which was targeted and focused on organisational failure and turnaround in healthcare, education and local government settings. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement to guide the reporting of the methods and findings and the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) as a quality assessment tool. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD: 42019131024). RESULTS: Failure is frequently defined as the inability of organisations to meet pre-established performance standards and turnaround as a linear process. Improvement interventions are designed accordingly and are focused on the organisation, with limited system-level thinking. Successful interventions included restructuring senior leadership teams, inspections, and organisational restructuring by external organisations. Limited attention was paid to the potential negative consequences of the interventions and their costs. CONCLUSION: Dominant definitions of success/failure and turnaround have led to the reduced scope of improvement interventions, the linear perception of turnaround, and lack of consideration of organisations within the wider system in which they operate. Future areas of research include an analysis of the costs of delivering these interventions in relation to their impact on quality of care.

Special Measures for Quality and Challenged Providers: Study Protocol for Evaluating the Impact of Improvement Interventions in NHS Trusts.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations in England rated as inadequate in terms of leadership and one other domain enter the Special Measures for Quality (SMQ) regime to receive increased support and oversight. There is also a 'watch list' of challenged National Health Service (NHS) providers at risk of going into SMQ that receive support. There is limited knowledge about whether the interventions used to deliver this support drive improvements in quality, their costs, and whether they strike the right balance between support and scrutiny. The study will seek to determine how provider organisations respond to these interventions, and whether and how these interventions impact organisations' capacity to achieve and sustain quality improvements over time. METHODS: This is a multi-site, mixed methods study. We will carry out interviews at national level to understand the programme theory underpinning the interventions. We will conduct 8 NHS case studies to explore the impact and implementation of the interventions that form part of the SMQ and challenged providers programme. We will use a conceptual framework based on models of organisational readiness for change and draw on board maturity research for implementing quality improvement. We will also review the use of quantitative metrics and data for tracking the progress of improvements in quality of care and sustainability upon leaving SMQ, as well as the costs and benefits of the interventions through a cost-consequence analysis (CCA). DISCUSSION: High-quality interventions that successfully support struggling healthcare organisations are essential and an issue that is an international concern. Our study will allow a greater understanding of the programme theory, impact, and staff views and experiences of the SMQ and challenged providers regime. Formative feedback will be reported to key stakeholders.

The gold standard of management? Evidence-based management and healthcare delivery.

This article presents ideas from a current debate in the field of Management Studies, which suggests that healthcare organisations should take an evidence-based approach to their management practice. Such arguments form part of a broader move toward the standardisation of knowledge and practice in healthcare organisations, and an overriding concern with organisational efficiency. However the complexity of healthcare decision-making and evidence-selection make this process problematic, including in primary care.