Search

Objectives: The impact of incident investigations in improving patient safety may be linked to the quality of risk controls recommended in investigation reports. We aimed to identify the range and apparent strength of risk controls generated from investigations into serious incidents, map them against contributory factors identified in investigation reports, and characterize the nature of the risk controls proposed., Methods: We undertook a content analysis of 126 action plans of serious incident investigation reports from a multisite and multispeciality UK hospital over a 3-year period to identify the risk controls proposed. We coded each risk control against the contributory factor it aimed to address. Using a hierarchy of risk controls model, we assessed the strength of proposed risk controls. We used thematic analysis to characterize the nature of proposed risk controls., Results: A substantial proportion (15%) of factors identified in investigation reports as contributing to serious incidents were not addressed by identifiable risk controls. Of the 822 proposed risk controls in action plans, most (74%) were assessed as weak, typically focusing on individualized interventions-even when the problems were organizational or systemic in character. The following 6 broad approaches to risk controls could be identified: improving individual or team performance; defining, standardizing, or reinforcing expected practice; improving the working environment; improving communication; process improvements; and disciplinary actions., Conclusions: The identified shortfalls in the quality of risk controls following serious incident investigations-including a 15% mismatch between contributory factors and aligned risk controls and 74% of proposed risk controls centering on weaker interventions-represent significant gaps in translating incident investigations into meaningful systemic improvements. Advancing the quality of risk controls after serious incident investigations will require involvement of human factors specialists in their design, a theory-of-change approach, evaluation, and curation and sharing of learning, all supported by a common framework., Competing Interests: The authors disclose no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The Safety Case is a regulatory technique that requires organisations to demonstrate to regulators that they have systematically identified hazards in their systems and reduced risks to being as low as reasonably practicable. It is used in several high-risk sectors, but only in a very limited way in healthcare. We examined the first documented attempt to apply the Safety Case methodology to clinical pathways., Methods: Data are drawn from a mixed-methods evaluation of the Safer Clinical Systems programme. The development of a Safety Case for a defined clinical pathway was a centrepiece of the programme. We base our analysis on 143 interviews covering all aspects of the programme and on analysis of 13 Safety Cases produced by clinical teams., Results: The principles behind a proactive, systematic approach to identifying and controlling risk that could be curated in a single document were broadly welcomed by participants, but was not straightforward to deliver. Compiling Safety Cases helped teams to identify safety hazards in clinical pathways, some of which had been previously occluded. However, the work of compiling Safety Cases was demanding of scarce skill and resource. Not all problems identified through proactive methods were tractable to the efforts of front-line staff. Some persistent hazards, originating from institutional and organisational vulnerabilities, appeared also to be out of the scope of control of even the board level of organisations. A particular dilemma for organisational senior leadership was whether to prioritise fixing the risks proactively identified in Safety Cases over other pressing issues, including those that had already resulted in harm., Conclusions: The Safety Case approach was recognised by those involved in the Safer Clinical Systems programme as having potential value. However, it is also fraught with challenge, highlighting the limitations of efforts to transfer safety management practices to healthcare from other sectors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Employee voice is an important source of organizational intelligence about possible problems in quality and patient safety, but effective systems for encouraging and supporting those who seek to speak up have remained elusive. In the English National Health Service, a novel role known as the 'Freedom to Speak Up Guardian' has been introduced to address this problem. We critically examine the role and its realization in practice, drawing on semi-structured interviews with 51 key individuals, including Guardians, clinicians, managers, policymakers, regulators and others. Operationalizing the new role in organizations was not straightforward, since it had to sit in a complex set of existing systems and processes. One response was to seek to bound the scope of Guardians, casting them in a signposting or coordinating role in relation to quality and safety concerns. However, the role proved hard to delimit, not least because the concerns most frequently voiced in practice differed in character from those anticipated in the role's development. Guardians were tasked with making sense of and dealing with issues that could not always straightforwardly be classified, deflected to the right system or escalated to the appropriate authority. Our analysis suggests that the role's potential contribution might be understood less as supporting whistleblowers who bear witness to clear-cut wrongdoing, and more as helping those with lower-level worries to construct their concerns and what to do with them. These findings have implications for how voice is understood, imagined and addressed in healthcare organizations.

The importance of employee voice-speaking up and out about concerns-is widely recognised as fundamental to patient safety and quality of care. However, failures of voice continue to occur, often with disastrous consequences. In this article, we argue that the enduring sociological concepts of the informal organisation and formal organisation offer analytical purchase in understanding the causes of such problems and how they can be addressed. We report a qualitative study involving 165 interviews across three healthcare organisations in two high-income countries. Our analysis emphasises the interdependence of the formal and informal organisation. The formal organisation describes codified and formalised elements of structures, procedures and processes for the exercise of voice, but participants often found it frustrating, ambiguous, and poorly designed. The informal organisation-the informal practices, social connections, and methods for making decisions that are key to coordinating organisational activity-could facilitate voice through its capacity to help people to understand complex processes, make sense of their concerns, and frame them in ways likely to prompt an appropriate organisational response. Sometimes the informal organisation compensated for gaps, ambiguities and inconsistencies in formal policies and systems. At the same time, the informal organisation had a dark side, potentially subduing voice by creating informal hierarchies, prioritising social cohesion, and providing opportunities for retaliation. The formal and the informal organisation are not exclusive or independent: they interact with and mutually reinforce each other. Our findings have implications for efforts to improve culture and processes in relation to voice in healthcare organisations, pointing to the need to address deficits in the formal organisation, and to the potential of building on strengths in the informal organisation that are crucial in supporting voice., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Healthcare organisations often fail to harvest and make use of the 'soft intelligence' about safety and quality concerns held by their own personnel. We aimed to examine the role of formal channels in encouraging or inhibiting employee voice about concerns., Methods: Qualitative study involving personnel from three academic hospitals in two countries. Interviews were conducted with 165 participants from a wide range of occupational and professional backgrounds, including senior leaders and those from the sharp end of care. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Results: Leaders reported that they valued employee voice; they identified formal organisational channels as a key route for the expression of concerns by employees. Formal channels and processes were designed to ensure fairness, account for all available evidence and achieve appropriate resolution. When processed through these formal systems, concerns were destined to become evidenced, formal and tractable to organisational intervention. But the way these systems operated meant that some concerns were never voiced. Participants were anxious about having to process their suspicions and concerns into hard evidentiary facts, and they feared being drawn into official procedures designed to allocate consequence. Anxiety about evidence and process was particularly relevant when the intelligence was especially 'soft'-feelings or intuitions that were difficult to resolve into a coherent, compelling reconstruction of an incident or concern. Efforts to make soft intelligence hard thus risked creating 'forbidden knowledge': dangerous to know or share., Conclusions: The legal and bureaucratic considerations that govern formal channels for the voicing of concerns may, perversely, inhibit staff from speaking up. Leaders responsible for quality and safety should consider complementing formal mechanisms with alternative, informal opportunities for listening to concerns., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Some individuals from the participating hospitals are also investigators on the study., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: To analyze the challenges encountered during surgical quality improvement interventions, and explain the relative success of different intervention strategies., Summary Background Data: Understanding why and how interventions work is vital for developing improvement science. The S3 Program of studies tested whether combining interventions addressing culture and system was more likely to result in improvement than either approach alone. Quantitative results supported this theory. This qualitative study investigates why this happened, what aspects of the interventions and their implementation most affected improvement, and the implications for similar programs., Methods: Semistructured interviews were conducted with hospital staff (23) and research team members (11) involved in S3 studies. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method, with coding conducted concurrently with data collection. Themes were identified and developed in relation to the program theory behind S3., Results: The superior performance of combined intervention over single intervention arms appeared related to greater awareness and ability to act, supporting the S3 hypothesis. However, we also noted unforeseen differences in implementation that seemed to amplify this difference. The greater ambition and more sophisticated approach in combined intervention arms resulted in requests for more intensive expert support, which seemed crucial in their success. The contextual challenges encountered have potential implications for the replicability and sustainability of the approach., Conclusions: Our findings support the S3 hypothesis, triangulating with quantitative results and providing an explanatory account of the causal relationship between interventions and outcomes. They also highlight the importance of implementation strategies, and of factors outside the control of program designers.

Formal metrics for monitoring the quality and safety of healthcare have a valuable role, but may not, by themselves, yield full insight into the range of fallibilities in organizations. 'Soft intelligence' is usefully understood as the processes and behaviours associated with seeking and interpreting soft data-of the kind that evade easy capture, straightforward classification and simple quantification-to produce forms of knowledge that can provide the basis for intervention. With the aim of examining current and potential practice in relation to soft intelligence, we conducted and analysed 107 in-depth qualitative interviews with senior leaders, including managers and clinicians, involved in healthcare quality and safety in the English National Health Service. We found that participants were in little doubt about the value of softer forms of data, especially for their role in revealing troubling issues that might be obscured by conventional metrics. Their struggles lay in how to access softer data and turn them into a useful form of knowing. Some of the dominant approaches they used risked replicating the limitations of hard, quantitative data. They relied on processes of aggregation and triangulation that prioritised reliability, or on instrumental use of soft data to animate the metrics. The unpredictable, untameable, spontaneous quality of soft data could be lost in efforts to systematize their collection and interpretation to render them more tractable. A more challenging but potentially rewarding approach involved processes and behaviours aimed at disrupting taken-for-granted assumptions about quality, safety, and organizational performance. This approach, which explicitly values the seeking out and the hearing of multiple voices, is consistent with conceptual frameworks of organizational sensemaking and dialogical understandings of knowledge. Using soft intelligence this way can be challenging and discomfiting, but may offer a critical defence against the complacency that can precede crisis., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Background: Walkrounds, introduced as Leadership (or Executive) WalkRounds, are a widely advocated model for increasing leadership engagement in patient safety to improve safety culture, but evidence for their effectiveness is mixed. In the English National Health Service (NHS), hospitals have been strongly encouraged to make use of methods closely based on the walkrounds approach. A study was conducted to explore how walkrounds are used in practice and to identify variations in implementation that might mediate their impact on safety and culture., Methods: The data, collected from 82 semistructured interviews in the English NHS, were drawn from two components of a wider study of culture and behavior around quality and safety in the English system. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Findings: Our analysis highlights how local, pragmatic adjustments to the walkrounds approach could radically alter its character and the way in which it is received by those at the front line. The modification and expansion of walkrounds to increase the scope of knowledge produced could increase the value that executives draw from them. However, it risks replacing the main objectives of walkrounds--specific, actionable knowledge about safety issues, and a more positive safety culture and relationship between ward and board--with a form of surveillance that could alienate frontline staff and produce fallible insights., Conclusion: The studys findings suggest some plausible explanations for the mixed evidence for walkrounds' effectiveness in creating a safety culture. On a practical level, they point to critical questions that executives must ask themselves in practicing interventions of this nature to ensure that adaptations align rather than conflict with the intervention's model of change.

Purpose: Research on patient safety campaigns has mostly concentrated on large-scale multi-organisation efforts, yet locally led improvement is increasingly promoted. The purpose of this paper is to characterise the design and implementation of an internal patient safety campaign at a large acute National Health Service hospital trust with a view to understanding how to optimise such campaigns., Design/methodology/approach: The authors conducted a qualitative study of a campaign that sought to achieve 12 patient safety goals. The authors interviewed 19 managers and 45 frontline staff, supplemented by 56 hours of non-participant observation. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Findings: The campaign was motivated by senior managers' commitment to patient safety improvement, a series of serious untoward incidents, and a history of campaign-style initiatives at the trust. While the campaign succeeded in generating enthusiasm and focus among managers and some frontline staff, it encountered three challenges. First, though many staff at the sharp end were aware of the campaign, their knowledge, and acceptance of its content, rationale, and relevance for distinct clinical areas were variable. Second, the mechanisms of change, albeit effective in creating focus, may have been too limited. Third, many saw the tempo of the campaign as too rapid. Overall, the campaign enjoyed some success in raising the profile of patient safety. However, its ability to promote change was mixed, and progress was difficult to evidence because of lack of reliable measurement., Originality/value: The study shows that single-organisation campaigns may help in raising the profile of patient safety. The authors offer important lessons for the successful running of such campaigns.

Two understandings of the dynamics of power developed by Foucault have been extensively used in analyses of contemporary healthcare: disciplinary power and governmentality. They are sometimes considered alternative or even contradictory conceptual frameworks. Here, we seek to deploy them as complementary ways of making sense of the complexities of healthcare organisation today. We focus on efforts to improve quality and safety in three UK hospitals. We find a prominent role for disciplinary power, including a panoptic gaze that is to some extent internalised by professionals. We suggest, however, that the role of disciplinary power relies for its impact on complementary strategies that are more akin to governmentality. These strategies foster organisational contexts that are receptive to disciplinary work. More fundamentally, we find that both disciplinary power and governmentality work on subjectivities in rather a different manner from that suggested by conventional accounts. We offer an alternative, less individualised and more socialised, understanding of the way in which power acts upon subjectivity and behaviour in professional contexts., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to explore the views of strategic level stakeholders on leadership for quality and safety in the UK National Health Service., Methods: We interviewed 107 stakeholders with close involvement in quality and safety as professionals, managers, policy makers or commentators. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Results: Participants identified the crucial role of leadership in ensuring safe, high quality care. Consistent with the academic literature, participants distinguished between traditional hierarchical 'concentrated' leadership associated with particular positions, and distributed leadership involving those with particular skills and abilities across multiple institutional levels. They clearly and explicitly saw a role for distributed leadership, emphasizing that all staff had responsibility for leading on patient safety and quality. They described the particular value of leadership coalitions between managers and clinicians. However, concern was expressed that distributed leadership could mean confusion about who was in charge, and that at national level it risked creating a vacuum of authority, mixed messages, and conflicting expectations and demands. Participants also argued that hierarchically based leadership was needed to complement distributed leadership, not least to provide focus, practical support and expertise, and managerial clout., Conclusions: Strategic level stakeholders see the most effective form of leadership for quality and safety as one that blends distributed and concentrated leadership. Policy and academic prescriptions about leadership may benefit from the sophisticated and pragmatic know-how of insiders who work in organizations that remain permeated by traditional structures, cleavages and power relationships.

Context: "Meaningful use" of electronic health records to improve quality of care has remained understudied. We evaluated an approach to improving patients' safety and quality of care involving the secondary use of data from a hospital electronic prescribing and decision support system (ePDSS)., Methods: We conducted a case study of a large English acute care hospital with a well-established ePDSS. Our study was based on ethnographic observations of clinical settings (162 hours) and meetings (28 hours), informal conversations with clinical staff, semistructured interviews with ten senior executives, and the collection of relevant documents. Our data analysis was based on the constant comparative method., Findings: This hospital's approach to quality and safety could be characterized as "technovigilance." It involved treating the ePDSS as a warehouse of data on clinical activity and performance. The hospital converted the secondary data into intelligence about the performance of individuals, teams, and clinical services and used this as the basis of action for improvement. Through a combination of rapid audit, feedback to clinical teams, detailed and critical review of apparent omissions in executive-led meetings, a focus on personal professional responsibility for patients' safety and quality care, and the correction of organizational or systems defects, technovigilance was-based on the hospital's own evidence-highly effective in improving specific indicators. Measures such as the rate of omitted doses of medication showed marked improvement. As do most interventions, however, technovigilance also had unintended consequences. These included the risk of focusing attention on aspects of patient safety made visible by the system at the expense of other, less measurable but nonetheless important, concerns., Conclusions: The secondary use of electronic data can be effective for improving specific indicators of care if accompanied by a range of interventions to ensure proper interpretation and appropriate action. But care is needed to avoid unintended consequences., (© 2013 Milbank Memorial Fund.)

Objectives: While safety-dedicated professional roles are common in other high-risk industries, in health care they have tended to have a relatively narrow, technical focus. We present initial findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of a novel, senior role with responsibility for leadership of safety in English National Health Service organisations: the patient safety specialist. Methods: We conducted interviews with those responsible for designing, developing and overseeing the introduction of the role. We also carried out a national survey of current patient safety specialists. Data collection and analysis focused on the rationale for the role, its theory of change, and experiences of putting the theory into practice. Results: Interview participants articulated a clear theory of change for the role, highlighting ways in which the focus of the role, the seniority, responsibility and influence of role holders, and the expertise they brought might result in better safety management and speedier implementation of initiatives to manage risk and improve safety. Survey respondents had mixed experiences of the role to date, particularly in terms of material and symbolic support from their organisations. Together, findings from the two datasets indicated the need for a careful balance between strategic and operational activities to secure impact for patient safety specialists while ensuring they were embedded in the realities of clinical work as done—a balance that not all role holders found easy to achieve. Conclusions: The vision for the patient safety specialist role is clear, and supported by a plausible account of how the work of role holders might result in the intended objectives. The degree to which specialists are supported and resourced to deliver on these ambitions, however, varies markedly across organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Those who work in health care organisations are a potentially valuable source of information about safety concerns, yet failures of voice are persistent. We propose the concept of 'voiceable concern' and offer an empirical exploration. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study involving 165 semi-structured interviews with a range of staff (clinical, non-clinical and at different hierarchical levels) in three hospitals in two countries. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Our analysis shows that identifying what counts as a concern, and what counts as a occasion for voice by a given individual, is not a straightforward matter of applying objective criteria. It instead often involves discretionary judgement, exercised in highly specific organisational and cultural contexts. We identified four influences that shape whether incidents, events and patterns were classified as voiceable concerns: certainty that something is wrong and is an occasion for voice; system versus conduct concerns, forgivability and normalisation. Determining what counted as a voiceable concern is not a simple function of the features of the concern; also important is whether the person who noticed the concern felt it was voiceable by them. Conclusions: Understanding how those who work in health care organisations come to recognise what counts as a voiceable concern is critical to understanding decisions and actions about speaking out. The concept of a voiceable concern may help to explain aspects of voice behaviour in organisations as well as informing interventions to improve voice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Employee voice is an important source of organizational intelligence about possible problems in quality and patient safety, but effective systems for encouraging and supporting those who seek to speak up have remained elusive. In the English National Health Service, a novel role known as the 'Freedom to Speak Up Guardian' has been introduced to address this problem. We critically examine the role and its realization in practice, drawing on semi-structured interviews with 51 key individuals, including Guardians, clinicians, managers, policymakers, regulators and others. Operationalizing the new role in organizations was not straightforward, since it had to sit in a complex set of existing systems and processes. One response was to seek to bound the scope of Guardians, casting them in a signposting or coordinating role in relation to quality and safety concerns. However, the role proved hard to delimit, not least because the concerns most frequently voiced in practice differed in character from those anticipated in the role's development. Guardians were tasked with making sense of and dealing with issues that could not always straightforwardly be classified, deflected to the right system or escalated to the appropriate authority. Our analysis suggests that the role's potential contribution might be understood less as supporting whistleblowers who bear witness to clear-cut wrongdoing, and more as helping those with lower-level worries to construct their concerns and what to do with them. These findings have implications for how voice is understood, imagined and addressed in healthcare organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent decades have seen the influence of the professions decline. Lately, commentators have suggested a revived role for a “new” professionalism in ensuring and enhancing high-quality health care in systems dominated by market and managerial logics. The form this new professionalism might take, however, remains obscure. This article uses data from an ethnographic study of three English health care improvement projects to analyze the place, potential, and limitations of professionalism as a means of engaging clinicians in efforts to improve service quality. We found that appeals to notions of professionalism had strong support among practitioners, but converting enthusiasm for the principle of professionalism into motivation to change practice was not straightforward. Some tactics used in pursuit of this deviated sharply from traditional models of collegial social control. In systems characterized by fissures between professional groups and powerful market and managerial influences, we suggest that professionalism must interact creatively but carefully with other logics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient involvement in patient safety is emerging as an area of growing policy, practice, and academic interest. In this article, we review the existing literature on patient involvement and patient safety and seek to highlight some of the key areas of challenge in this emergent field by relating it to themes identified in the wider, more mature, literature on patient and public involvement in health care in general. Insights from the wider literature illuminate key issues for involvement in patient safety and suggest promising ways of circumventing these challenges and achieving involvement in patient safety in a way that maximizes impact while avoiding unintended consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Patient and public involvement in healthcare planning, service development and health-related research has received significant attention. However, evidence about the role of patient involvement in quality improvement work is more limited. We aimed to characterize patient involvement in three improvement projects and to identify strengths and weaknesses of contrasting approaches. Methods Three case study quality improvement projects were purposively sampled from a broader programme. We used an ethnographic approach involving 126 in-depth interviews, 12 weeks of non-participant observations and documentary analysis. Data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results The three projects differed in the ways they involved patients in their quality improvement work, including their rationales for including patients. We characterized three very different models of patient involvement, which were each influenced by project context. Patients played distinctive roles across the three projects, acting in some cases as intermediaries between the wider patient community and clinicians, and sometimes undertaking persuasive work to convince clinicians of the need for change. We identified specific strategies that can be used to help ensure that patient involvement works most effectively and that the enthusiasm of patients to make a difference is not dissipated. Conclusion Patient involvement in quality improvement work needs careful management to realize its full potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare organisations' responses to concerns and complaints often fall short of the expectations of patients and staff who raise them, and substandard responses to concerns and complaints have been implicated in organisational failures. Informed by Habermas's systems theory, we offer new insights into the features of organisations' responses to concerns and complaints that give rise to these problems. We draw on a large qualitative dataset, comprising 88 predominantly narrative interviews with people raising and responding to concerns and complaints in six English NHS organisations. In common with past studies, many participants described frustrations with systems and processes that seemed ill-equipped to deal with concerns of the kinds they raised. Departing from existing analyses, we identify the influence of functional rationality, as conceptualised by Habermas, and embodied in procedures, pathways and scripts for response, in producing this dissatisfaction. Functionally rational processes were well equipped to deal with simple, readily categorised concerns and complaints. They were less well placed to respond adequately to concerns and complaints that were complex, cross-cutting, or irreducible to predetermined criteria for redress and resolution. Drawing on empirical examples and on Habermas's theory of communicative action, we offer suggestions for alternative and supplementary approaches to responding to concerns and complaints that might better address both the expectations of complainants and the improvement of services. • Processes for addressing concerns and complaints often frustrate those who raise them. • We use Habermas's systems theory to identify the reasons why and how to address them. • Processes tend to be well formed to deal with simpler, easily categorised concerns. • They are often ill-suited to respond to complex, multifaceted or cross-cutting concerns. • Communicative rationality offers useful principles for improving these processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responding to Ruth McDonald's editorial on the rise of leadership and leadership development programmes in healthcare, this paper offers three arguments. Firstly, care is needed in evaluating impact of leadership development, since achievement of organisational goals is not necessarily an appropriate measure of good leadership. Secondly, the proliferation of styles of leadership might be understood in part as a means of retaining control over public services while distributing responsibility for their success and failure. Thirdly, it makes a plea for the continued utility of good administrative skills for clinicians and managers, which are likely to become all-the-more important given recent developments in healthcare policy and governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]