Dataset Information

REducing unwarranted variation in the Delivery of high qUality hip fraCture services in England and Wales (REDUCE): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Substantial variation in the delivery of hip fracture care, and patient outcomes persists between hospitals, despite established UK national standards and guidelines. Patients' outcomes are partly explained by patient-level risk factors, but it is hypothesised that organisational-level factors account for the persistence of unwarranted variation in outcomes. The mixed-methods REducing unwarranted variation in the Delivery of high qUality hip fraCture services in England and Wales (REDUCE) study, aims to determine key organisational factors to target to improve patient care.

Methods and analysis

Quantitative analysis will assess the outcomes of patients treated at 172 hospitals in England and Wales (2016-2019) using National Hip Fracture Database data combined with English Hospital Episodes Statistics; Patient Episode Database for Wales; Civil Registration (deaths) and multiple organisational-level audits to characterise each service provider. Statistical analyses will identify which organisational factors explain variation in patient outcomes, and typify care pathways with high-quality consistent patient outcomes. Documentary analysis of 20 anonymised British Orthopaedic Association hospital-initiated peer-review reports, and qualitative interviews with staff from four diverse UK hospitals providing hip fracture care, will identify barriers and facilitators to care delivery. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major challenge to the resilience of services and interviews will explore strategies used to adapt and innovate. This system-wide understanding will inform the development, in partnership with key national stakeholders, of an 'Implementation Toolkit' to inform and improve commissioning and delivery of hip fracture services.

Ethics and dissemination

This study was approved: quantitative study by London, City and East Research Ethics Committee (20/LO/0101); and qualitative study by Faculty of Health Sciences University of Bristol Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 108284), National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (20/HRA/71) and each NHS Trust provided Research and Development approval. Findings will be disseminated through scientific conferences, peer-reviewed journals and online workshops.

SUBMITTER: Patel R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8137248 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDespite established standards and guidelines, substantial variation remains in the delivery of hip fracture care across the United Kingdom. We aimed to determine which hospital-level organisational factors predict adverse patient outcomes in the months following hip fracture.MethodsWe examined a national record-linkage cohort of 178,757 patients aged ≥60 years who sustained a hip fracture in England and Wales in 2016-19. Patient-level hospital admissions datasets, National Hip Fracture Database and mortality data were linked to metrics from 18 hospital-level organisational-level audits and reports. Multilevel models identified organisational factors, independent of patient case-mix, associated with three patient outcomes: length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day all-cause mortality and emergency 30-day readmission.ResultsAcross hospitals mean LOS ranged from 12 to 41.9 days, mean 30-day mortality from 3.7 to 10.4% and mean readmission rates from 3.7 to 30.3%, overall means were 21.4 days, 7.3% and 15.3%, respectively. In all, 22 organisational factors were independently associated with LOS; e.g. a hospital's ability to mobilise >90% of patients promptly after surgery predicted a 2-day shorter LOS (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-2.6). Ten organisational factors were independently associated with 30-day mortality; e.g. discussion of patient experience feedback at clinical governance meetings and provision of prompt surgery to >80% of patients were each associated with 10% lower mortality (95%CI: 5-15%). Nine organisational factors were independently associated with readmissions; e.g. readmissions were 17% lower if hospitals reported how soon community therapy would start after discharge (95%CI: 9-24%).ConclusionsReceipt of hip fracture care should be reliable and equitable across the country. We have identified multiple, potentially modifiable, organisational factors associated with important patient outcomes following hip fracture.

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is common after hip fracture surgery, affecting up to 50% of patients. The incidence of delirium may be influenced by mode and conduct of anaesthesia. We examined the effect of spinal anaesthesia (with and without sedation) compared with general anaesthesia on early outcomes following hip fracture surgery, including delirium.MethodsWe used prospective data on 107,028 patients (2018 to 2019) from the National Hip Fracture Database, which records all hip fractures in patients aged 60 years and over in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were grouped by anaesthesia: general (58,727; 55%), spinal without sedation (31,484; 29%), and spinal with sedation (16,817; 16%). Outcomes (4AT score on post-operative delirium screening; mobilisation day one post-operatively; length of hospital stay; discharge destination; 30-day mortality) were compared between anaesthetic groups using multivariable logistic and linear regression models.ResultsCompared with general anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia without sedation (but not spinal with sedation) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR)=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92-0.98), increased likelihood of day one mobilisation (OR=1.06, CI=1.02-1.10) and return to original residence (OR=1.04, CI=1.00-1.07). Spinal without sedation (p<0.001) and spinal with sedation (p=0.001) were both associated with shorter hospital stays compared with general anaesthesia. No differences in mortality were observed between anaesthetic groups.ConclusionsSpinal and general anaesthesia achieve similar outcomes for patients with hip fracture. However, this equivalence appears to reflect improved perioperative outcomes (including a reduced risk of delirium, increased likelihood of mobilisation day one post-operatively, shorter length of hospital stay and improved likelihood of returning to previous residence on discharge) among the sub-set of patients who received spinal anaesthesia without sedation. The role and effect of sedation should be studied in future trials of hip fracture patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia.

Project description:BackgroundHip fractures are devastating injuries causing disability, dependence, and institutionalisation, yet hospital care is highly variable. This study aimed to determine hospital organisational factors associated with recovery of mobility and change in patient residence after hip fracture.MethodsA cohort of patients aged 60 + years in England and Wales, who sustained a hip fracture from 2016 to 2019 was examined. Patient-level Hospital Episodes Statistics, National Hip Fracture Database, and mortality records were linked to 101 factors derived from 18 hospital-level organisational metrics. After adjustment for patient case-mix, multilevel models were used to identify organisational factors associated with patient residence at discharge, and mobility and residence at 120 days after hip fracture.ResultsAcross 172 hospitals, 165,350 patients survived to discharge, of whom 163,230 (99%) had post-hospital discharge destination recorded. 18,323 (11%) died within 120 days. Among 147,027 survivors, 58,344 (40%) across 143 hospitals had their residence recorded, and 56,959 (39%) across 140 hospitals had their mobility recorded, at 120 days. Nineteen organisational factors independently predicted residence on hospital discharge e.g., return to original residence was 31% (95% confidence interval, CI:17-43%) more likely if the anaesthetic lead for hip fracture had time allocated in their job plan, and 8-13% more likely if hip fracture service clinical governance meetings were attended by an orthopaedic surgeon, physiotherapist or anaesthetist. Seven organisational factors independently predicted residence at 120 days. Patients returning to their pre-fracture residence was 26% (95%CI:4-42%) more likely if hospitals had a dedicated hip fracture ward, and 20% (95%CI:8-30%) more likely if treatment plans were proactively discussed with patients and families on admission. Seventeen organisational factors predicted mobility at 120 days. More patients re-attained their pre-fracture mobility in hospitals where (i) care involved an orthogeriatrician (15% [95%CI:1-28%] improvement), (ii) general anaesthesia was usually accompanied by a nerve block (7% [95%CI:1-12%], and (iii) bedside haemoglobin testing was routine in theatre recovery (13% [95%CI:6-20%]).ConclusionsMultiple, potentially modifiable, organisational factors are associated with patient outcomes up to 120 days after a hip fracture, these factors if causal should be targeted by service improvement initiatives to reduce variability, improve hospital hip fracture care, and maximise patient independence.

Project description:ObjectiveExplore professional views of changes to gastroenterology service organisation and delivery and barriers and facilitators impacting on change. The work was undertaken as part of an evaluation in endoscopy service provision catalysed by the Modernising Endoscopy Services Programme of the Modernisation Agency.DesignFocus groups followed by analysis and group-working activities identifying key themes.SettingEnglish and Welsh secondary care gastroenterology units.Participants20 professionals working in gastroenterology in England and Wales. Medical, surgical and nursing specialists including endoscopy nurses. Opportunistic sampling to include senior people in leadership and management roles who were directly involved in service modernisation, excluding those involved in the Modernisation Endoscopy Services Programme.ResultsFour 1.5 h focus groups took place in 2007. Summative and thematic analyses captured essential aspects of text and achieved consensus on key themes. 4 themes were revealed: 'loss of personal autonomy and erosion of professionalism', 'lack of senior management understanding', 'barriers and facilitators to change' and 'differences between English and Welsh units'. Themes indicated that low staff morale, lack of funding and senior management support were barriers to effective change. Limitations to the study include the disproportionately low number of focus group attendees from English units and the time delay in reporting these findings.ConclusionsDespite ambitions to implement change, ineffective management support continued to hamper modernisation of service organisation and delivery. While the National Health Service Modernisation Agency Modernising Endoscopy Services Programme acted as a catalyst for change, affecting the way staff work, communicate and think, it was not effective in heralding change itself. However, gastroenterologists were keen to consider the potential for change and future service modernisation. The methodological framework of innovative qualitative enquiry offers comprehensive and rigorous enhancement of quantitative studies, including randomised trials, when a mixed methods approach is needed.

Project description:BackgroundRecent publications indicate increased mortality in patients admitted to hospital at the weekend, but these findings may be subject to inadequate adjustment for case-mix and the complexities of resource provision. Hip fractures generally occur in a frail comorbid population with a consistent diagnosis precipitating admission as an emergency. We therefore aimed to examine the association between the day of the week of milestones in the care pathway and 30-day mortality in this population.MethodsUsing data from a prospective national database of hip fractures, we investigated the association between day of the week of admission, surgery, inpatient stay, and discharge (care pathway milestones) and 30-day mortality using generalised linear models. Data was collected between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2014, on 241,446 patients. An incremental case-mix adjustment strategy was performed using patient characteristics, non-surgical interventions, surgical interventions and discharge characteristics.ResultsThe day of admission was not associated with 30-day mortality. Sunday surgery (OR, 1.094; 95% CI, 1.043-1.148; P < 0.0001) and a delay to surgery of more than 24-hours (OR, 1.094; 95% CI, 1.059, 1.130; P < 0.0001) were both associated with a 9.4% increase in 30-day mortality. Discharge from the hospital on a Sunday (OR, 1.515; 95% CI, 1.224, 1.844; P < 0.0001) or out-of-hours discharge (OR, 1.174; 95% CI, 1.081, 1.276; P < 0.0001) were associated with a 51.5% and 17.4% increase in 30-day mortality, respectively. Mortality during the inpatient stay was 5.6% lower (IRR, 0.944; 95% CI, 0.909, 0.980; P = 0.003) at the weekend compared to weekdays.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence of a generalised weekend effect in patients admitted to hospital for hip fracture. Optimising resource utilisation is an essential element of planning and delivering healthcare services. Interventions that lead to surgery within 24-hours of admission are justified. Factors such as Sunday operations, discharge and out-of-hours discharge require further investigation.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Long-term and late effects of cancer treatments can cause functional limitations and reduce quality of life. Cancer rehabilitation services, which can comprise physical exercise, psychological support and educational interventions depending on the individual's needs, have been found to have a positive effect on health-related quality of life worldwide. However, accessibility or the lack of awareness on available help can act as barriers and influence the uptake of services, resulting in people having unmet rehabilitation needs. In Wales, UK, 41% of people, who have had health and social care needs resulting from cancer and its treatments, reported that they did not receive care when needed. The reason for this lack of support has not yet been fully investigated. The aim of this study is to investigate the conditions in which cancer rehabilitation services work and their underpinning mechanisms in South Wales, UK, specifically addressing barriers, facilitators and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Realist evaluation, which explains for whom a service works in what circumstances and how through context-mechanism-outcome pattern conjunctions, will be used in three phases to investigate the conditions in which cancer rehabilitation services work and their underpinning mechanisms. Phase 1 will be secondary analysis of a cancer rehabilitation database from a local Health Board to give context to who are accessing rehabilitation. Phase 2 will be thematic analysis of face-to-face, semistructured rehabilitation participant (n=20) and healthcare professional (n=20) interviews to explore the mechanisms of how cancer rehabilitation works. Phase 3 will be two case studies and cost-consequences analysis of cancer rehabilitation services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study received favourable ethical opinion from London South-East Research Ethics Committee (17/LO/2123) in December 2017. This project is part of the author's PhD thesis and it is expected that the findings will be disseminated in academic journals and at local and international conferences.

Project description:BackgroundThe UK performs poorly relative to other economically developed countries on numerous indicators of care quality for children. The contribution of iatrogenic harm to these outcomes is unclear. As primary care is the first point of healthcare contact for most children, we sought to investigate the safety of care provided to children in this setting.Methods and findingsWe undertook a mixed methods investigation of reports of primary care patient safety incidents involving sick children from England and Wales' National Reporting and Learning System between 1 January 2005 and 1 December 2013. Two reviewers independently selected relevant incident reports meeting prespecified criteria, and then descriptively analyzed these reports to identify the most frequent and harmful incident types. This was followed by an in-depth thematic analysis of a purposive sample of reports to understand the reasons underpinning incidents. Key candidate areas for strengthening primary care provision and reducing the risks of systems failures were then identified through multidisciplinary discussions. Of 2,191 safety incidents identified from 2,178 reports, 30% (n = 658) were harmful, including 12 deaths and 41 cases of severe harm. The children involved in these incidents had respiratory conditions (n = 387; 18%), injuries (n = 289; 13%), nonspecific signs and symptoms, e.g., fever (n = 281; 13%), and gastrointestinal or genitourinary conditions (n = 268; 12%), among others. Priority areas for improvement included safer systems for medication provision in community pharmacies; triage processes to enable effective and timely assessment, diagnosis, and referral of acutely sick children attending out-of-hours services; and enhanced communication for robust safety netting between professionals and parents. The main limitations of this study result from underreporting of safety incidents and variable data quality. Our findings therefore require further exploration in longitudinal studies utilizing case review methods.ConclusionsThis study highlights opportunities to reduce iatrogenic harm and avoidable child deaths. Globally, healthcare systems with primary-care-led models of delivery must now examine their existing practices to determine the prevalence and burden of these priority safety issues, and utilize improvement methods to achieve sustainable improvements in care quality.

Project description:ObjectivesRemote home monitoring services for patients at risk of rapid deterioration introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic had important implications for the health workforce. This study explored the nature of 'work' that health care staff in England undertook to manage patients with COVID-19 remotely, how they were supported to deliver these new services, and the factors that influenced delivery of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services for staff.MethodsWe conducted a rapid mixed-methods evaluation of COVID-19 remote home monitoring services during November 2020 to July 2021 using a cross-sectional survey of a purposive sample of staff involved in delivering the service (clinical leads, frontline delivery staff and those involved in data collection and management) from 28 sites across England. We also conducted interviews with 58 staff in a subsample of 17 sites. Data collection and analysis were carried out in parallel. We used thematic analysis to analyse qualitative data while quantitative survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 292 staff responded to the surveys (39% response rate). We found that prior experience of remote monitoring had some, albeit limited benefit for delivering similar services for patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Staff received a range of locally specific training and clinical oversight along with bespoke materials and resources. Staff reported feeling uncertain about using their own judgement and being reliant on seeking clinical oversight. The experience of transitioning from face-to-face to remote service delivery led some frontline delivery staff to reconsider their professional role, as well as their beliefs around their own capabilities. There was a general perception of staff being able to adapt, acquire new skills and knowledge and they demonstrated a commitment to continuity of care for patients, although there were reports of struggling with the increased accountability and responsibility attached to their adapted roles at times.ConclusionsRemote home monitoring models can play an important role in managing a large number of patients for COVID-19 and possibly a range of other conditions. Successful delivery of such service models depends on staff competency and the nature of training received to facilitate effective care and patient engagement.