Search

Background Triage and clinical consultations increasingly occur remotely. We aimed to learn why safety incidents occur in remote encounters and how to prevent them. Setting and sample UK primary care. 95 safety incidents (complaints, settled indemnity claims and reports) involving remote interactions. Separately, 12 general practices followed 2021-2023. Methods Multimethod qualitative study. We explored causes of real safety incidents retrospectively ('Safety I' analysis). In a prospective longitudinal study, we used interviews and ethnographic observation to produce individual, organisational and system-level explanations for why safety and near-miss incidents (rarely) occurred and why they did not occur more often ('Safety II' analysis). Data were analysed thematically. An interpretive synthesis of why safety incidents occur, and why they do not occur more often, was refined following member checking with safety experts and lived experience experts. Results Safety incidents were characterised by inappropriate modality, poor rapport building, inadequate information gathering, limited clinical assessment, inappropriate pathway (eg, wrong algorithm) and inadequate attention to social circumstances. These resulted in missed, inaccurate or delayed diagnoses, underestimation of severity or urgency, delayed referral, incorrect or delayed treatment, poor safety netting and inadequate follow-up. Patients with complex pre-existing conditions, cardiac or abdominal emergencies, vague or generalised symptoms, safeguarding issues, failure to respond to previous treatment or difficulty communicating seemed especially vulnerable. General practices were facing resource constraints, understaffing and high demand. Triage and care pathways were complex, hard to navigate and involved multiple staff. In this context, patient safety often depended on individual staff taking initiative, speaking up or personalising solutions. Conclusion While safety incidents are extremely rare in remote primary care, deaths and serious harms have resulted. We offer suggestions for patient, staff and system-level mitigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The use of temporary doctors, known as locums, has been common practice for managing staffing shortages and maintaining service delivery internationally. However, there has been little empirical research on the implications of locum working for quality and safety. This study aimed to investigate the implications of locum working for quality and safety. Methods Qualitative semi- structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with 130 participants, including locums, patients, permanently employed doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals with governance and recruitment responsibilities for locums across primary and secondary healthcare organisations in the English NHS. Data were collected between March 2021 and April 2022. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and abductive analysis. Results Participants described the implications of locum working for quality and safety across five themes: (1) 'familiarity' with an organisation and its patients and staff was essential to delivering safe care; (2) 'balance and stability' of services reliant on locums were seen as at risk of destabilisation and lacking leadership for quality improvement; (3) 'discrimination and exclusion' experienced by locums had negative implications for morale, retention and patient outcomes; (4) 'defensive practice' by locums as a result of perceptions of increased vulnerability and decreased support; (5) clinical governance arrangements, which often did not adequately cover locum doctors. Conclusion Locum working and how locums were integrated into organisations posed some significant challenges and opportunities for patient safety and quality of care. Organisations should take stock of how they work with the locum workforce to improve not only quality and safety but also locum experience and retention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical tools for use in practice--such as medicine reconciliation charts, diagnosis support tools and track- and- trigger charts--are endemic in healthcare, but relatively little attention is given to how to optimise their design. User- centred design approaches and co- design principles offer potential for improving usability and acceptability of clinical tools, but limited practical guidance is currently available. We propose a framework (FRamework for co- dESign of Clinical practice tOols or 'FRESCO') offering practical guidance based on user- centred methods and co- design principles, organised in five steps: (1) establish a multidisciplinary advisory group; (2) develop initial drafts of the prototype; (3) conduct think- aloud usability evaluations; (4) test in clinical simulations; (5) generate a final prototype informed by workshops. We applied the framework in a case study to support co- design of a prototype track- and- trigger chart for detecting and responding to possible fetal deterioration during labour. This started with establishing an advisory group of 22 members with varied expertise. Two initial draft prototypes were developed--one based on a version produced by national bodies, and the other with similar content but designed using human factors principles. Think- aloud usability evaluations of these prototypes were conducted with 15 professionals, and the findings used to inform co-design of an improved draft prototype. This was tested with 52 maternity professionals from five maternity units through clinical simulations. Analysis of these simulations and six workshops were used to co-design the final prototype to the point of readiness for large- scale testing. By codifying existing methods and principles into a single framework, FRESCO supported mobilisation of the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to co- design a prototype track- and- trigger chart in an area of pressing service need. Subject to further evaluation, the framework has potential for application beyond the area of clinical practice in which it was applied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) are a complex and underserved group. They are commonly older patients with multiple comorbidities, who rely on multiple healthcare services. Regional variation in services and resourcing has been highlighted as a problem in heart failure care, with few teams bridging the interface between the community and secondary care. These reports conflict with policy goals to improve coordination of care and dissolve boundaries between specialist services and the community. Aim To explore how care is coordinated for patients with HFpEF, with a focus on the interface between primary care and specialist services in England. Methods We applied systems thinking methodology to examine the relationship between work- as- imagined and work- as- done for coordination of care for patients with HFpEF . We analysed clinical guidelines in conjunction with a secondary applied thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals caring for patients with HFpEF including general practitioners, specialist nurses and cardiologists and patients with HFpEF themselves (n=41). Systems Thinking for Everyday Work principles provided a sensitising theoretical framework to facilitate a deeper understanding of how these data illustrate a complex health system and where opportunities for improvement interventions may lie. Results Three themes (working with complexity, information transfer and working relationships) were identified to explain variability between work- as- imagined and work- as- done. Participants raised educational needs, challenging work conditions, issues with information transfer systems and organisational structures poorly aligned with patient needs. Conclusions There are multiple challenges that affect coordination of care for patients with HFpEF. Findings from this study illuminate the complexity in coordination of care practices and have implications for future interventional work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In many quality improvement (QI) and other complex interventions, assessing the fidelity with which participants 'enact' intervention activities (ie, implement them as intended) is underexplored. Adapting the evaluative approach used in objective structured clinical examinations, we aimed to develop and validate a practical approach to assessing fidelity enactment-- the Overall Fidelity Enactment Scale for Complex Interventions (OFES-CI). Methods We developed the OFES-CI to evaluate enactment of the SCOPE QI intervention, which teaches nursing home teams to use plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. The OFES-CI was piloted and revised early in SCOPE with good inter-rater reliability, so we proceeded with a single rater. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to assess inter-rater reliability. For 27 SCOPE teams, we used ICC to compare two methods for assessing fidelity enactment: (1) OFES-CI ratings provided by one of five trained experts who observed structured 6 min PDSA progress presentations made at the end of SCOPE, (2) average rating of two coders' deductive content analysis of qualitative process evaluation data collected during the final 3 months of SCOPE (our gold standard). Results Using Cicchetti's classification, inter-rater reliability between two coders who derived the gold standard enactment score was 'excellent' (ICC=0.93, 95% CI=0.85 to 0.97). Inter-rater reliability between the OFES-CI and the gold standard was good (ICC=0.71, 95% CI=0.46 to 0.86), after removing one team where open-text comments were discrepant with the rating. Rater feedback suggests the OFES-CI has strong face validity and positive implementation qualities (acceptability, easy to use, low training requirements). Conclusions The OFES-CI provides a promising novel approach for assessing fidelity enactment in QI and other complex interventions. It demonstrates good reliability against our gold standard assessment approach and addresses the practicality problem in fidelity assessment by virtue of its suitable implementation qualities. Steps for adapting the OFES-CI to other complex interventions are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]