Dataset Information

Perspectives of paediatric hospital staff on factors influencing the sustainability and spread of a safety quality improvement programme.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Situation Awareness For Everyone (SAFE) is a quality improvement programme aiming to improve situation awareness in paediatric clinical teams. The aim of our study was to examine hospital staff perceptions of the facilitators and barriers/challenges to the sustaining and subsequent spread of the huddle, the key intervention of the SAFE programme.

Setting

Interviews were held on two wards in two children hospitals and on two children wards in two district general hospitals.

Method

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 23 staff members from four National Health Service paediatric wards. A deductive thematic analysis was conducted, drawing on an existing framework, which groups the factors influencing programme sustainability into four categories: innovation, leadership, process and context.

Participants

23 staff in two children's hospitals and two children's wards across four UK hospitals, comprising of nurses and doctors, administration or housekeeping staff, ward managers and matrons, and allied professionals.

Primary outcomes

Understanding factors contributing to the sustaining and spread of a quality improvement intervention.

Results

Perceptions of the benefits, purpose and fit of the huddle, team commitment, sharing learning, adaptation of the method and senior leadership were identified as facilitators. High staff turnover, large multiple specialty medical staff teams, lack of senior leadership and dislike of change were identified as barriers/challenges.

Conclusions

Sustaining and spreading quality improvement interventions in a complex clinical setting requires understanding of the interplay between the actual innovation and existing leadership, process and contextual factors. These must be considered at the planning stage of an innovation to maximise the potential for sustainability and spread to other settings.

SUBMITTER: Lachman P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7986768 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSustainability capacity (SC), which is an organization's ability to implement and maintain change, is influenced by internal attributes, environmental contextual influencers, and intervention attributes. Temporal changes in staff SC perceptions, as well as the influence of quality improvement collaborative (QIC) participation, has generally not been explored. This project addresses this gap, measuring staff SC perceptions at four time points (baseline and every 9 months) for clinics participating in an intervention - the Network for the Improvement of Addiction Treatment QIC initiative (called NIATx200).MethodsA mixed linear model repeated measures analysis was applied to matched staff members (n = 908, representing 2329 total cases) across the evaluation timeframe. Three separate statistical models assessed potential predictors of SC perceptions: Time (Models I-III); NIATx200 intervention, staff job function, and tenure (Models II &III); and NIATx200 participation hours and four organizational variables (Model III).ResultsFor Model I, staff perceptions of total SC increased throughout most of the study (t1,4 = - 6.74, p < .0001; t2,4 = - 3.100, p < .036; t3,4 = - 0.23, p = ns). Model II did not change Model I's overall Time effect, but combined NIATx200 services (t = - 2.23, p = .026), staff job function (t = - 3.27, p = .001), and organizational administrators (t = - 3.50, p = .001) were also significantly associated with greater perceptions of total SC. Inclusion of additional variables in Model III demonstrated the importance of a higher participation level (t = - 3.09, p < .002) and being in a free-standing clinic (t = - 2.06, p < .04) on staff perceptions of total SC.ConclusionAlthough staff exposure to sustainability principals was minimal in NIATx200, staff perceptions about their organization's SC significantly differed over time. However, an organization's participation level in a QIC became the principal predictor of staff SC perceptions, regardless of other factors' influence. Given these findings, it is possible to develop and introduce specific sustainability content within the structure of a QIC to assess the impact on staff SC perceptions over time and the sustainment of organizational change.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00934141 . Registered July 6, 2009. Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundPatients have the potential to provide feedback on the safety of their care. Recently, tools have been developed that ask patients to provide feedback on those factors that are known to contribute to safety, therefore providing information that can be used proactively to manage safety in hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the safety information provided by patients is different from that provided by staff and whether it is related to safety outcomes.MethodData were collected from 33 hospital wards across 3 acute hospital Trusts in the UK. Staff on these wards were asked to complete the four outcome measures of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, while patients were asked to complete the Patient Measure of Safety and the friends and family test. We also collated publicly reported safety outcome data for 'harm-free care' on each ward. This patient safety thermometer measure is used in the UK NHS to record the percentage of patients on a single day of each month on every ward who have received harm-free care (ie, no pressure ulcers, falls, urinary tract infections and hospital acquired new venous thromboembolisms). These data were used to address questions about the relationship between measures and the extent to which patient and staff perceptions of safety predict safety outcomes.ResultsThe friends and family test, a single item measure of patient experience was associated with patients' perceptions of safety, but was not associated with safety outcomes. Staff responses to the patient safety culture survey were not significantly correlated with patient responses to the patient measure of safety, but both independently predicted safety outcomes. The regression models showed that staff perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.39) and patient perceptions (adjusted r(2)=0.30) of safety independently predicted safety outcomes. When entered together both measures accounted for 49% of the variance in safety outcomes (adjusted r(2)=0.49), suggesting that there is overlap but some unique variance is also explained by these two measures. Based on responses to the Patient Measure of Safety it was also possible to identify differences between the acute Hospital Trusts.DiscussionThe findings suggest that although the views of patients and staff predict some overlapping variance in patient safety outcomes, both also offer a unique perspective on patient safety, contributing independently to the prediction of safety outcomes. These findings suggest that feedback from patients about the safety of the care that they receive can be used, in addition to data from staff to drive safety improvements in healthcare.Trial registration numberISRCTN07689702.

Project description:Many patients are admitted to hospital and are already malnourished. Gaps in practice have identified that care processes for these patients can be improved. Hospital staff, including management, needs to work towards optimizing nutrition care in hospitals to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of malnutrition. The objective of this study was to understand how staff members perceived and described the necessary ingredients to support change efforts required to improve nutrition care in their hospital.A qualitative study was conducted using purposive sampling techniques to recruit participants for focus groups (FG) (n = 11) and key informant interviews (n = 40) with a variety of hospital staff and management. Discussions based on a semi-structured schedule were conducted at five diverse hospitals from four provinces in Canada as part of the More-2-Eat implementation project. One researcher conducted 2-day site visits over a two-month period to complete all interviews and FGs. Interviews were transcribed verbatim while key points and quotes were taken from FGs. Transcripts were coded line-by-line with initial thematic analysis completed by the primary author. Other authors (n = 3) confirmed the themes by reviewing a subset of transcripts and the draft themes. Themes were then refined and further detailed. Member checking of site summaries was completed with site champions.Participants (n = 133) included nurses, physicians, food service workers, dietitians, and hospital management, among others. Discussion regarding ways to improve nutrition care in each specific site facilitated the thought process during FG and interviews. Five main themes were identified: building a reason to change; involving relevant people in the change process; embedding change into current practice; accounting for climate; and building strong relationships within the hospital team.Hospital staff need a reason to change their nutrition care practices and a significant change driver is perceived and experienced benefit to the patient. Participants described key ingredients to support successful change and specifically engaging the interdisciplinary team to effect sustainable improvements in nutrition care.Retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800304 , June 7, 2016.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying factors that influence sustained implementation of hospital-based interventions is key to ensuring evidence-based best practice is maintained across the NHS. This study aimed to identify, appraise and synthesise the barriers and facilitators that influenced the delivery of sustained healthcare interventions in a hospital-based setting.MethodsA systematic review reported in accordance with PRISMA. Eight electronic databases were reviewed in addition to a hand search of Implementation Science journal and reference lists of included articles. Two reviewers were used to screen potential abstracts and full text papers against a selection criteria. Study quality was also independently assessed by two reviewers. Barriers and facilitators were extracted and mapped to a consolidated sustainability framework.ResultsOur searching identified 154,757 records. We screened 14,626 abstracts and retrieved 431 full text papers, of which 32 studies met the selection criteria. The majority of studies employed a qualitative design (23/32) and were conducted in the UK (8/32) and the USA (8/32). Interventions or programmes were all multicomponent, with the majority aimed at improving the quality of patient care and/ or safety (22/32). Sustainability was inconsistently reported across 30 studies. Barriers and facilitators were reported in all studies. The key facilitators included a clear accountability of roles and responsibilities (23/32); ensuring the availability of strong leadership and champions advocating the use of the intervention (22/32), and provision of adequate support available at an organisational level (21/32). The most frequently reported barrier to sustainability was inadequate staff resourcing (15/32). Our review also identified the importance of inwards spread and development of the initiative over time, as well as the unpredictability of sustainability and the need for multifaceted approaches.ConclusionsThis review has important implications for practice and research as it increases understanding of the factors that faciliate and hinder intervention sustainability. It also highlights the need for more consistent and complete reporting of sustainability to ensure that lessons learned can be of direct benefit to future implementation of interventions.Trial registrationThe review is registered on PROSPERO ( CRD42017081992 ).

Project description:BackgroundInterventions to improve quality of care for residents of long-term care facilities, and to examine the sustainability and spread of such initiatives, remain a top research priority. The purpose of this exploratory study was to assess the extent to which activities initiated in a quality improvement (QI) collaborative study using care aide led teams were sustained or spread following cessation of the initial project and to identify factors that led to its success.MethodsThis study used an exploratory mixed methods study design and was conducted in seven residential long-term care facilities in two Canadian provinces. Sustainability and spread of QI activities were assessed by a questionnaire over five time points for 18 months following the collaborative study with staff from both intervention with non-intervention units. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with care managers at six and 12 months. QI team success in applying the QI model was ranked as high, medium, or low using criteria developed by the research team. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and General Estimating Equations were used to analyze the data. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.ResultsIn total, 683 surveys were received over the five time periods from 476 unique individuals on a facility unit. Seven managers were interviewed. A total of 533 surveys were analyzed. While both intervention and non-intervention units experienced a decline over time in all outcome measures, this decline was significantly less pronounced on intervention units. Facilities with medium and high success ranking had significantly higher scores in all four outcomes than facilities with a low success ranking. Care aides reported significantly less involvement of others in QI activities, less empowerment and less satisfaction with the quality of their work life than regulated care providers. Manager interviews provided evidence of sustainability of QI activities on the intervention units in four of the seven facilities up to 18 months following the intervention and demonstrated the need for continued staff and leadership engagement.ConclusionSustainability of a QI project which empowers and engages care aides is possible and achievable, but requires ongoing staff and leadership engagement.

Project description:BackgroundRecent research, which explored the use of Quality Improvement (QI) methods in the Covid-19 pandemic response, found that Quality Improvement principles were utilised during the crisis management period, albeit without direct intention. Following on from this work, the aim of this paper extends that study by investigating the sustainability and resilience of not only the changes implemented by healthcare staff during Covid-19 in Ireland, but the resilience of the wellbeing of healthcare staff themselves through the various waves of Covid-19.MethodsTo explore healthcare staffs experience of Quality Improvement and the sustainability and resilience of both Quality Improvement initiatives and healthcare staff, a qualitative design was implemented. Semi-structured interviews took place online over Zoom with 11 healthcare staff members from the Irish healthcare service in the Spring of 2022. An analysis of the narratives was conducted using thematic analysis supported by NVivo12.ResultsFour key themes were evident from the data: (i) From fear to exhaustion; (ii) maintaining person-centred approaches to care; (iii) Covid-19 as a medium for change, and; (iv) staff resilience and appetite for Quality Improvement.DiscussionThe results of this work identified three key learnings; (i) integrating learning into policies and practice: (ii) the role of collective leadership and devolving/sharing power; and (iii) key drivers/factors that promote sustainability of QI interventions. Despite the challenges in recruitment of research participants experienced during the pandemic, a narrative approach supported the collation of rich and nuanced insights into the experiences of healthcare staff during this time.ConclusionA growing body of literature currently exists on how healthcare staff felt during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, as the waves of Covid-19 have declined, it is vital to examine how the feelings of burnout and disillusionment will affect engagement with Quality Improvement in the future. It is also worth noting and examining the feeling of purpose and pride participants expressed from working through the Covid-19 pandemic. This study has helped to address this gap.