Dataset Information

Using qualitative research methods to understand how surgical procedures and devices are introduced into NHS hospitals: the Lotus study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The development of innovative invasive procedures and devices are essential to improving outcomes in healthcare. However, how these are introduced into practice has not been studied in detail. The Lotus study will follow a wide range of 'case studies' of new procedures and/or devices being introduced into NHS trusts to explore what information is communicated to patients, how procedures are modified over time and how outcomes are selected and reported.

Methods and analysis

This qualitative study will use ethnographic approaches to investigate how new invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced. Consultations in which the innovation is discussed will be audio-recorded to understand information provision practice. To understand if and how procedures evolve, they will be video recorded and non-participant observations will be conducted. Post-operative interviews will be conducted with the innovating team and patients who are eligible for the intervention. Audio-recordings will be audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using constant comparison techniques. Video-recordings will be reviewed to deconstruct procedures into key components and document how the procedure evolves. Comparisons will be made between the different data sources.

Ethics and dissemination

The study protocol has Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales approval (Ref 18/SW/0277). Results will be disseminated at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings of this study will provide a better understanding of how innovative invasive procedures and/or devices are introduced into practice.

SUBMITTER: Elliott D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8647399 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionInnovation is key to improving outcomes in healthcare. Innovative pharmaceutical products undergo rigorous phased research evaluation before they are introduced into practice. The introduction of innovative invasive procedures and devices is much less rigorous and phased research, including randomised controlled trials, is not always undertaken. While the innovator (usually a surgeon) may introduce a new or modified procedure/device within the context of formal research, they may also be introduced by applying for local National Health Service (NHS) organisation approval alone. Written policies for the introduction of new procedures and/or devices often form part of this local clinical governance infrastructure; however, little is known about their content or use in practice. This study aims to systematically investigate how new invasive procedures and devices are introduced in NHS England and Wales.Methods and analysisAn in-depth analysis of written policies will be undertaken. This will be supplemented with interviews with key stakeholders. All acute NHS trusts in England and Health Boards in Wales will be systematically approached and asked to provide written policies for the introduction of new invasive procedures and devices. Information on the following will be captured: (1) policy scope, including when new procedures should be introduced within a formal research framework; (2) requirements for patient information provision; (3) outcome reporting and/or monitoring. Data will be extracted using a standardised form developed iteratively within the study team. Semistructured interviews with medical directors, audit and governance leads, and surgeons will explore views regarding the introduction of new invasive procedures into practice, including knowledge of and implementation of current policies.Ethics and disseminationIn-depth analysis of written policies does not require ethics approval. The University of Bristol Ethics Committee (56522) approved the interview component of the study. Findings from this work will be presented at appropriate conferences and will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

Project description:BackgroundSmoking is a public health concern and an avoidable cause of morbidity and mortality. Widening tobacco control policies might help shift social norms, the acceptability of exposing others to second-hand smoke, and cultural attitudes towards smoking. This study explored patient, staff, and visitor viewpoints of smoking within the grounds of a National Health Service hospital.MethodsAnalysis of free text responses given as part of a larger repeat cross sectional questionnaire study. Free text qualitative responses analysed using thematic analysis. Pinderfields Hospital, a UK National Health Service hospital in the county of Yorkshire, provides a health service to around half a million people living in the Wakefield and North Kirklees area. Surveys were distributed 10th-18th September and 17th-21st December 2012. Of the n=952 participants who completed an anonymous survey n=306 participants provided a response to the optional free text question.ResultsThematic analysis revealed 5 distinct themes: (1) smoking is a dirty problem; (2) smokers are free to do as they wish; (3) the poor smoker; (4) smoke in our space: the battleground; and (5) no smoking please. Of the n=272 represented by the five themes, generally people accepted that smoking is socially unacceptable but their understanding of smoking behaviours and attitudes towards management and control of smoking differed. There was a strong sense that action is needed to separate the space smokers and non-smokers share. We identified a distinct group of participants that supported a hard line approach and suggested enforcing the no smoking policy through fines and monitoring.ConclusionsSmoking on hospital grounds remains a contentious issue. Participants acknowledge that smoking is an increasingly unacceptable social behaviour but their understanding and acceptance of smokers vary. There is a strong sense of dislike about the impact of smoke and smokers on the shared hospital environment, with a focus on the hospital entrance. Participants suggest separating smokers and non-smokers and moving smokers away from the hospital entrance with the introduction of smoking shelters. These results suggest a complex narrative that should be investigated further to inform the implementation of the no-smoking policy across hospital settings.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Around 70% of acute hospital beds in the UK are occupied by older people, approximately 40% of whom have dementia. Improving the quality of care in hospitals is a key priority within national dementia strategies. Limited research has been conducted to evaluate dementia training packages for staff, and evaluation of training often focuses on immediate, on-the-day training feedback and effects. OBJECTIVES:Our study aims to answer two research questions: (1) How do variations in content, implementation and intensity of staff dementia training in acute hospitals in England relate to health service outcome/process measures and staff outcomes? and (2) What components of staff dementia training are most strongly related to improved patient and staff outcomes? METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Using the principles of programme theory, a mixed-method study will be used to identify mechanisms and the interactions between them, as well as facilitators and barriers to dementia training in hospitals. We will use existing data, such as Hospital Episode Statistics, alongside two surveys (at hospital and staff level).We will recruit up to 193 acute hospitals in England to participate in the hospital level survey. We aim to recruit up to 30 staff members per hospital, from a random sample of 24 hospitals. In addition, we will explore the cost-effectiveness of dementia training packages and carry out an in-depth case study of up to six hospitals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been reviewed and approved by the Faculty of Health and Medicine Research Ethics Committee (FHMREC 17056) and Health Research Authority (Integrated Research Approval System (IRAS) ID 242166: REC reference 18/HRA/1198). We plan to develop both standard (eg, academic publications, presentations at conferences) and innovative (eg, citizen scientist web portals, online fora, links with hospitals and third sector organisations) means of ensuring the study findings are accessible and disseminated regionally, nationally and internationally.

Project description:Study Design:Retrospective cohort study. Objective:As hospital compensation becomes increasingly dependent on pay-for-performance and bundled payment compensation models, hospitals seek to reduce costs and increase quality. To our knowledge, no reported data compare these measures between hospital settings for elective lumbar procedures. The study compares hospital-reported outcomes and costs for elective lumbar procedures performed at a tertiary hospital (TH) versus community hospitals (CH) within a single health care system. Methods:Retrospective review of a physician-maintained, prospectively collected database consisting of 1 TH and 4 CH for 3 common lumbar surgeries from 2015 to 2016. Patients undergoing primary elective microdiscectomy for disc herniation, laminectomy for spinal stenosis, and laminectomy with fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis were included. Patients were excluded for traumatic, infectious, or malignant pathology. Comparing hospital settings, outcomes included length of stay (LOS), rates of 30-day readmissions, potentially preventable complications (PPC), and discharge to rehabilitation facility, and hospital costs. Results:A total of 892 patients (n = 217 microdiscectomies, n = 302 laminectomies, and n = 373 laminectomy fusions) were included. The TH served a younger patient population with fewer comorbid conditions and a higher proportion of African Americans. The TH performed more decompressions (P < .001) per level fused; the CH performed more interbody fusions (P = .007). Cost of performing microdiscectomy (P < .001) and laminectomy (P = .014) was significantly higher at the TH, but there was no significant difference for laminectomy with fusion. In a multivariable stepwise linear regression analysis, the TH was significantly more expensive for single-level microdiscectomy (P < .001) and laminectomy with single-level fusion (P < .001), but trended toward significance for laminectomy without fusion (P = .052). No difference existed for PPC or readmissions rate. Patients undergoing laminectomy without fusion were discharged to a facility more often at the TH (P = .019). Conclusions:We provide hospital-reported outcomes between a TH and CH. Significant differences in patient characteristics and surgical practices exist between surgical settings. Despite minimal differences in hospital-reported outcomes, the TH was significantly more expensive.