Search

Objective: The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice. Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services. Results: Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families. Conclusions: Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frailty is increasingly used in clinical settings to describe a physiological state resulting from a combination of age-related co-morbidities. Frailty also has a strong 'lay' meaning that conjures a particular way of being. Recent studies have reported how frail older people perceive the term frailty, showing that frailty is often an unwanted and resisted label. While there are many scores and measures that clinicians can use to determine frailty, little has been published regarding how health-care professionals use and make sense of the term. This paper reports the findings of a qualitative study that explored how health professionals perceive frailty. Forty situated interviews were conducted with health-care professionals working in an emergency department in the English Midlands. The interview talk was analysed using discourse analysis. The findings show that the health professionals negotiate an 'ideological dilemma' – a tension between contradictory sets of meanings and consequences for action – based on their 'lay' and clinical experience of the term frailty. It is concluded that this dilemma could have a negative impact on the assessment of frailty depending on the system of assessment used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the 2012 Health and Social Care Act that was heralded to be among the most significant changes in policy for the National Health Service (NHS) in England; and also mentions that patient, public involvement in the development of transformation plans has been restricted.

Objectives: Calls for major reconfigurations of health services have been accompanied by recommendations that wide ranging stakeholders be involved. In particular, patients and the wider public are seen as critical contributors as both funders and beneficiaries of public health care. But public involvement is fraught with challenges, and little research has focused on involvement in the health service transformation initiatives. This paper examines the design and function of public involvement in reconfiguration of health services within the English NHS. Methods: Qualitative data including interviews, observation and documents were collected in two health service 'transformation' programmes; interviews include involved public and professional participants. Data were analysed using parallel deductive and inductive approaches. Results: Public involvement in the programmes was extensive but its terms of reference, and the individuals involved, were restricted by policy pressures and programme objectives. The degree to which participants descriptively or substantively represented the wider public was limited; participants sought to 'speak for' this public but their views on what was 'acceptable' and likely to influence decision-making led them to constrain their contributions. Conclusions: Public involvement in two major service reconfiguration programmes in England was seen as important and functional, and could not be characterized as tokenistic. Yet involvement in these programmes fell short of normative ideals, and could inadvertently reduce, rather than enlarge, public influence on health service reconfiguration decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: There have been calls for greater exchange between research and practice in health care policy and management, but little empirical research on what commissioners of research and researchers themselves consider appropriate, good quality research knowledge. This paper addresses this gap, considering the views of commissioners and producers of policy and management research in health care and other fields. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 18 commissioners and producers of research, in central government, the NHS and other commissioning organizations, and in universities and independent sector providers. Results: Commissioners and producers agreed that research often fails to fulfil policy-makers' and managers' needs, and that greater interaction is required to improve this relationship. However, they offered differing accounts of the nature of research knowledge (as a 'product' or a 'mindset'), and of what constitutes value, validity and originality in research, reflecting the differing priorities and pressures faced by the two groups. Conclusions: Efforts to promote greater interaction between research, policy and practice, and more critical, reflexive engagement between policy-makers, managers and researchers, are likely to face significant obstacles given these competing constructions of research knowledge and their reinforcement by divergent priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent health policy in England has demanded greater involvement of patients and the public in the commissioning of health and social care services. Public involvement is seen as a means of driving up service quality, reducing health inequalities and achieving value in commissioning decisions. This paper presents a summary and analysis of the forms that public involvement in commissioning are to take, along with empirical analysis from a qualitative study of service-user involvement. It is argued that the diversity of constituencies covered by the notion of 'public involvement', and the breadth of aims that public involvement is expected to achieve, require careful disaggregation. Public involvement in commissioning may encompass a variety of interest groups, whose inputs may include population needs assessment, evaluation of service quality, advocacy of the interests of a particular patient group or service, or a combination of all of these. Each of these roles may be legitimate, but there are significant tensions between them. The extent to which the structures for public involvement proposed recognize these possible tensions is arguably limited. Notably, new Local Involvement Networks (LINks), which will feed into commissioning decisions, are set as the arbiters of these different interests, a demanding role which will require considerable skill, tenacity and robustness if it is to be fulfilled effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on cultural and social change in the regions of Notting Hill, London. The last 15 years or so have witnessed much academic interest in the cultural aspects of contemporary shifts in the structure of urban space. Alongside accounts of the economic processes underlying such trends as gentrification and globalization which are seen as fundamental to the social and spatial restructuring of the post-Fordist city, an increasing amount of attention has been paid to the importance of the cultural in such processes. An area such as Notting Hill, so subject to the disorientating processes of gentrification and mediated representation, would seem a potentially fascinating place in which to research the place-meanings held by marginal or subordinate groups through direct qualitative research. Much has been written about the emergence of a postmodern urban landscape in which the post-industrial order of class polarization transforms the structure of urban space through associated processes, including gentrification.

Background: Local Healthwatch have been operating since 2013 as 'consumer champions' in health and social care in England. There is little evidence about how they operate and the daily practices through which they seek to represent citizen views and influence others. Objective: To explore (a) the current organizational arrangements, relationships and impact of local Healthwatch in England, and (b) to what extent do these vary across local Healthwatch organizations. Design: An online survey of all 150 local Healthwatch in England between December 2018 and January 2019. The survey comprised 47 questions and used a combination of closed‐ and open‐response questions. Results: We received responses from 96 local Healthwatch (68% response rate). Most local Healthwatch reported that they are 'independent' organizations that only do Healthwatch‐related work (58.3%) and are funded through a contract (79.2%). Budget cuts have affected four‐fifths of local Healthwatch (79.3%) since 2013. Three‐quarters (74%) of local Healthwatch currently receive funding external to that provided by their local authority for their Healthwatch functions. Most Healthwatch engage with only one CCG (56.3%), one mental health trust (82.3%) and one community health trust (62.5%), though 59.4% engage with more than one hospital trust. Healthwatch respondents overwhelmingly reported impacts that were local in nature. Conclusions: Geographical and historical factors, the quality and quantity of their relationships with stakeholders, and different funding arrangements all contribute to high variability in the structure and activities of local Healthwatch and to shaping the nature of their work and impact across England. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Covid-19 pandemic has imposed extraordinary strains on healthcare workers. But, in contrast with acute settings, relatively little attention has been given to those who work in mental health settings. We aimed to characterise the experiences of those working in English NHS secondary mental health services during the first wave of the pandemic. Methods: The design was a qualitative interview-based study. We conducted semi-structured, remote (telephone or online) interviews with 35 members of staff from NHS secondary (inpatient and community) mental health services in England. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method. Results: Participants reported wide-ranging changes in the organisation of secondary mental health care and the nature of work in response to the pandemic, including pausing of all services deemed to be "non-essential", deployment of staff across services to new and unfamiliar roles, and moves to remote working. The quality of participants' working life was impaired by increasing levels of daily challenge associated with trying to provide care in trying and constrained circumstances, the problems of forging new ways of working remotely, and constraints on ability to access informal support. Participants were confronted with difficult dilemmas relating to clinical decision-making, prioritisation of care, and compromises in ability to perform the therapeutic function of their roles. Other dilemmas centred on trying to balance the risks of controlling infection with the need for human contact. Many reported features of moral injury linked to their perceived failures in providing the quality or level of care that they felt service users needed. They sometimes sought to compensate for deficits in care through increased advocacy, taking on additional tasks, or making exceptions, but this led to further personal strain. Many experienced feelings of grief, helplessness, isolation, distress, and burnout. These problems were compounded by sometimes poor communication about service changes and by staff feeling that they could not take time off because of the potential impact on others. Some reported feeling poorly supported by organisations. Conclusions: Mental health workers faced multiple adversities during the pandemic that were highly consequential for their wellbeing. These findings can help in identifying targets for support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improving openness—including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes—is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which examined failings of openness at one English hospital. We examine whether staff and patients' views on openness, and experiences of giving voice to concerns, have changed since the report's publication for better or worse. Methods: Organisational-level data was collated for all trusts from the NHS National Staff Survey (2007–2017), NHS Acute Inpatient Survey (2004–2016) and NHS Community Mental Health Service User Survey (2007–2017). Survey items related to openness were identified and longitudinal statistical analysis conducted (piecewise growth curve and interrupted latent growth curve analysis) to determine whether there was evidence of a shift in the rate or direction of change following publication of the Francis report. Results: For some variables there was a discernible change in trajectory after the publication of the Francis report. Staff survey variables continued to rise after 2013, with a statistically significant increase in rate for "fairness and effectiveness of incident reporting procedures" (from + 0.02 to + 0.06 per year; p <.001). For the patient surveys, the picture was more mixed: patient views about information provided by accident and emergency staff rose from a 0.3% increase per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p <.01), and inpatients being involved in decision making increased from a 0.4% rise per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p <.01); however, there were not rises in the other questions. Mental health patients reported a decrease after 2013 in being listened to (decreasing at a rate of 1.9% per year, p <.001). Conclusions: Data suggest that the Francis inquiry may have had a positive impact on staff and acute inpatients' perceptions and experiences of openness in the NHS. However such improvements have not transpired in mental health. How best to create an environment in which patients can discuss their care and raise concerns openly in mental health settings may require further consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Improving openness-including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes-is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which examined failings of openness at one English hospital. We examine whether staff and patients' views on openness, and experiences of giving voice to concerns, have changed since the report's publication for better or worse.Methods: Organisational-level data was collated for all trusts from the NHS National Staff Survey (2007-2017), NHS Acute Inpatient Survey (2004-2016) and NHS Community Mental Health Service User Survey (2007-2017). Survey items related to openness were identified and longitudinal statistical analysis conducted (piecewise growth curve and interrupted latent growth curve analysis) to determine whether there was evidence of a shift in the rate or direction of change following publication of the Francis report.Results: For some variables there was a discernible change in trajectory after the publication of the Francis report. Staff survey variables continued to rise after 2013, with a statistically significant increase in rate for "fairness and effectiveness of incident reporting procedures" (from + 0.02 to + 0.06 per year; p < .001). For the patient surveys, the picture was more mixed: patient views about information provided by accident and emergency staff rose from a 0.3% increase per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01), and inpatients being involved in decision making increased from a 0.4% rise per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01); however, there were not rises in the other questions. Mental health patients reported a decrease after 2013 in being listened to (decreasing at a rate of 1.9% per year, p < .001).Conclusions: Data suggest that the Francis inquiry may have had a positive impact on staff and acute inpatients' perceptions and experiences of openness in the NHS. However such improvements have not transpired in mental health. How best to create an environment in which patients can discuss their care and raise concerns openly in mental health settings may require further consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives:We aimed to explore the views of strategic level stakeholders on leadership for quality and safety in the UKNational 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 theacademic literature, participants distinguished between traditional hierarchical 'concentrated' leadership associated withparticular positions, and distributed leadership involving those with particular skills and abilities across multiple institutionallevels. They clearly and explicitly saw a role for distributed leadership, emphasizing that all staff had responsibilityfor leading on patient safety and quality. They described the particular value of leadership coalitions between managersand clinicians. However, concern was expressed that distributed leadership could mean confusion about who was incharge, and that at national level it risked creating a vacuum of authority, mixed messages, and conflicting expectationsand demands. Participants also argued that hierarchically based leadership was needed to complement distributedleadership, 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 thatblends distributed and concentrated leadership. Policy and academic prescriptions about leadership may benefit from thesophisticated and pragmatic know-how of insiders who work in organizations that remain permeated by traditionalstructures, cleavages and power relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]