Search

Objectives—To describe the use, perceived eVectiveness, and predicted future use of organisational strategies for influencing clinicians’ behaviour in the approach of NHS trusts to clinical governance, and to ascertain the perceived benefits of clinical governance and the barriers to change. Design and setting—Whole population postal survey conducted between March and June 1999. Subjects—Clinical governance leads of 86 NHS trusts across the South West and West Midlands regions. Method—A combination of open questions to assess the use of strategies to influence clinician behaviour and the barriers to clinical governance. Closed (yes/ no) and Likert type ratings were used to assess the use, perceived eVectiveness, and future use of 13 strategies and the predicted outcomes of clinical governance. Results—All trusts use one or more of 13 strategies categorised as educational, facilitative, performance management, and organisational change methods. Most popular were educational programmes (96%) and protocols and guidelines (97%). The least popular was performance management such as use of financial incentives (29%). Examples of successful existing practice to date showed a preference for initiatives that described the use of protocols and guidelines, and use of benchmarking data. Strategies most frequently rated as eVective were facilitative methods such as the facilitation of best practice in clinical teams (79%), the use of pilot projects (73%), and protocols and guidelines (52%). The least often cited as eVective were educational programmes (42%) and training clinicians in information management (20%); 8% found none of the 13 strategies to be eVective. Predicted future use showed that all the trusts which completed this section intended to use at least one of the 13 strategies. The most popular strategies were educational and facilitative. Scatterplots show that there is a consistent relationship between use and planned future use. This was less apparent for the relationship between planned use and perceived eVectiveness. Barriers to change included lack of resources, mainly of money and staV time, and the need to address cultural issues, plus infrastructure support. The anticipated outcomes of clinical governance show that most trusts expect to influence clinician behaviour by improving patient outcomes (78%), but only 53% expect it to result in better use of resources, improved patient satisfaction (36%), and reduced complaints (10%). Conclusions—Clinical governance leads of trusts report using a range of strategies for influencing clinician behaviour and plan to use a similar range in the future. The choice of methods seems to be related to past experience of local use, despite equivocal judgements of their perceived eVectiveness in the trusts. Most expect to achieve a positive impact on patient outcomes as a result. It is concluded that trusts should establish methods of learning what strategies are eVective from their own data and from external comparison. (Quality in Health Care 2001;10:76‐82)

Aim—To identify and describe current methods of making health related research evidence accessible to general practice staV in the Northern and Yorkshire Region. Method—A postal survey questionnaire of general practice staV in the Northern and Yorkshire Region. Results—At least one completed questionnaire was obtained from 70% of the general practices surveyed, and the individual response rate to the survey was 45%. Just under 60% of all respondents reported having no access to the NHS internet and just under 50% also reported having no access to the internet. All respondents in this survey reported greater access to paper based information than to electronic databases. However, this research provides evidence of diVerential access to information resources between diVerent professions in general practice with GPs clearly having easier access than other professions to both paper based resources and electronic databases. 70% of all respondents said that they would need to be trained to use either a computer, the internet, or to search databases if the opportunity for easy access to any of these information services was available. Conclusions—At the time of this survey, general practices seemed to be struggling to set up the infrastructure and develop the skills that are necessary to make best use of available research evidence. In addition, there is a need for further investigation into the reasons why diVerent professions working in the same practice setting have diVerential access to information resources available in primary care. (Quality in Health Care 2001;10:83‐89)

Background —Consumer involvement in clinical guidelines has long been advocated although there are few empirical accounts of attempts to do so. It is therefore not surprising that there is a lack of clarity about how and when to involve consumers and what to expect from them within the process of guideline development. Methods —The North of England evidence based guideline development programme has used four different methods of consumer involvement. Results —When individual patients were included in a guideline development group they contributed infrequently and had problems with the use of technical language. Although they contributed most in discussions of patient education, their contributions were not subsequently acted on. In a “one off” meeting with a group of patients there were again reported problems with medical terminology and the group were most interested in sections on patient education and self management. However, their understanding of the use of scientific evidence in order to contribute to a more cost effective health care remained unclear. In a workshop it was possible to explain the technical elements of guideline development to patients who could then engage with such a process and make relevant suggestions as a consequence. However, this was relatively resource intensive. A patient advocate within a guideline development group felt confidence to speak, was used to having discussions with health professionals, and was familiar with the medical terminology. Conclusions —Consumers should be involved in all stages of guideline development. While this is possible, it is not straightforward. There is no one right way to accomplish this and there is a clear need for further work on how best to achieve it.

Background —No published quantitative instrument exists to measure maternal satisfaction with the quality of different models of labour care in the UK. Methods —A quantitative psychometric multidimensional maternal satisfaction questionnaire, the Women's Views of Birth Labour Satisfaction Questionnaire (WOMBLSQ), was developed using principal components analysis with varimax rotation of successive versions. Internal reliability and content and construct validity were assessed. Results —Of 300 women sent the first version (WOMBLSQ1), 120 (40%) replied; of 300 sent WOMBLSQ2, 188 (62.7%) replied; of 500 women sent WOMBLSQ3, 319 (63.8%) replied; and of 2400 women sent WOMBLSQ4, 1683 (70.1%) replied. The latter two versions consisted of 10 dimensions in addition to general satisfaction. These were (Cronbach's alpha): professional support in labour (0.91), expectations of labour (0.90), home assessment in early labour (0.90), holding the baby (0.87), support from husband/partner (0.83), pain relief in labour (0.83), pain relief immediately after labour (0.65), knowing labour carers (0.82), labour environment (0.80), and control in labour (0.62). There were moderate correlations (range 0.16–0.73) between individual dimensions and the general satisfaction scale (0.75). Scores on individual dimensions were significantly related to a range of clinical and demographic variables. Conclusion —This multidimensional labour satisfaction instrument has good validity and internal reliability. It could be used to assess care in labour across different models of maternity care, or as a prelude to in depth exploration of specific areas of concern. Its external reliability and transferability to care outside the South West region needs further evaluation, particularly in terms of ethnicity and social class.

Comprehensive care for people with disabling neurological disease—finding the best approach Comprehensive care for people with disabling neurological illnesses is widely acknowledged to require input from many specialisms. The foundation of such multifaceted care should be a detailed assessment of physical and psychosocial function and health needs, ideally by experienced individuals able to work in a transdisciplinary way and possessing excellent communication skills. Such individuals would be capable of both identifying a clinical problem, such as impaired heel strike, and determining the most appropriate treatment, such as stretches from the physiotherapist, botulinum toxin from the physician or orthopaedic release. Clearly clinicians with the wide training and experience for such …