Do associations between staff and inpatient feedback have the potential for improving patient experience? An analysis of surveys in NHS acute trusts in England

Staff Experience in the NHS: A National Study-An Experience-Based Design Approach

Introduction: A positive patient experience is a key component of good quality of care. Post-pandemic healthcare systems face the challenge of addressing burnout among healthcare staff, who are directly involved in the delivery of healthcare, which has implications for the patient experience. There is an established association between staff and patient experience; exploring the experience of staff may give insights into factors that negatively impact the patient experience. Experience-based design (EBD) is a quality improvement approach that uses the experience of service users to derive improvements. The purpose of this study is to design, validate, and test an EBD tool that may be used to capture the staff experience. Methods: A focus group of clinical and nonclinical staff (identified through the NHS Elect networks) and the development team coproduced an EBD survey based on nine "touch-points" of a typical working day. Once the survey questionnaire was tested and agreed with it was distributed to 1300 members of NHS networks. Results: A total of 377 NHS staff responded to the questionnaire. Analysis revealed effective teamwork had a positive psychological impact on staff. However, increased workload, missed meal breaks, and an increased administrative/IT burden were associated with the greatest negative responses by clinical and nonclinical staff. Conclusion: Overall, factors impacting staff well-being are multifaceted and varied between trusts. However, leaders in healthcare can use EBD to identify targeted improvements for the day-to-day experiences of staff.

Studying both patient and staff experience to investigate their perceptions and to target key interactions to improve: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The improvement of patient experience (PE) is related to the experience of staff caring for them. Yet there is little evidence as to which interactions matter the most for both patients and staff, or how they are perceived by them. We aimed to summarise the interactions and the perceptions between patients and staff from studies by using both patient and staff experience data in healthcare institutions.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review, including studies dealing with PE and staff experience. Two authors independently reviewed each title/abstract and the selected full-text articles. A list of variables (objective, study design, data sources, tools used, results, interactions, perceptions and actions) was charted and summarised using a narrative approach including both qualitative and quantitative data. Studies were grouped according to their objective and the key interactions summarised according to this stratification. The perceptions of patients and staff were identified in the results of selected studies and were classified into four categories: commonalities and disagreements of perceptions, patients' perceptions not perceived by professionals and professional's perceptions not perceived by patients.

RESULTS

A total of 42 studies were included. The stratification of studies by type of objective resulted in six groups that allowed to classify the key interactions (n=154) identified in the results of the selected studies. A total of 128 perceptions related to interaction between patient and staff were reported with the following distribution: commonalities (n=35), disagreements (n=18), patients' perceptions not perceived by professionals (n=47) and professional's perceptions not perceived by patients (n=28). We separated positive and negative perceptions, which resulted in seven scenarios, each with actions that can be carried out for one or both populations to overcome barriers.

CONCLUSION

The study of both patient and staff experience allowed the identification of actions that can be taken to change the perceptions of patients and staff.

Use of Patient-Reported Data within the Acute Healthcare Context: A Scoping Review

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient satisfaction surveys provide important information on how care can be improved. However, data collection does not always translate to changes in practice or service delivery. This scoping review aimed to collect, map and report on the use of collected patient-reported data used within acute healthcare contexts for improvement to care or processes. Using JBI methods, an extensive search was undertaken of multiple health databases and trial registries for published and unpublished studies. The concepts of interest included the types and characteristics of published patient experience and PROMs research, with a specific focus on the ways in which data have been applied to clinical practice. Barriers and facilitators to the use of collected data were also explored. From 4057 records, 86 papers were included. Most research was undertaken in North America, Canada or the UK. The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems tool (HCAHPS) was used most frequently for measuring patient satisfaction. Where reported, data were applied to improve patient-centred care and utilization of health resources. Gaps in the use of patient data within hospital services are noticeable. Engaging management and improving staff capability are needed to overcome barriers to implementation.

Realist evaluation of Schwartz rounds® for enhancing the delivery of compassionate healthcare: understanding how they work, for whom, and in what contexts

Background

Healthcare work is known to be stressful and challenging, and there are recognised links between the psychological health of staff and high-quality patient care. Schwartz Center Rounds® (Rounds) were developed to support healthcare staff to re-connect with their values through peer reflection, and to promote more compassionate patient care. Research to date has focussed on self-report surveys that measure satisfaction with Rounds but provide little analysis of how Rounds ‘work’ to produce their reported outcomes, how differing contexts may impact on this, nor make explicit the underlying theories in the conceptualisation and implementation of Rounds.

Methods

Realist evaluation methods aimed to identify how Rounds work, for whom and in what contexts to deliver outcomes. We interviewed 97 key informants: mentors, facilitators, panellists and steering group members, using framework analysis to organise and analyse our data using realist logic. We identified mechanisms by which Rounds lead to outcomes, and contextual factors that impacted on this relationship, using formal theory to explain these findings.

Results

Four stages of Rounds were identified. We describe how, why and for whom Schwartz Rounds work through the relationships between nine partial programme theories. These include: trust safety and containment; group interaction; counter-cultural/3rd space for staff; self-disclosure; story-telling; role modelling vulnerability; contextualising patients and staff; shining a spotlight on hidden stories and roles; and reflection and resonance. There was variability in the way Rounds were run across organisations. Attendance for some staff was difficult. Rounds is likely to be a ‘slow intervention’ the impact of which develops over time. We identified the conditions needed for Rounds to work optimally. These contextual factors influence the intensity and therefore degree to which the key ingredients of Rounds (mechanisms) are activated along a continuum, to produce outcomes. Outcomes included: greater tolerance, empathy and compassion for self and others; increased honesty, openness, and resilience; improved teamwork and organisational change.

Conclusions

Where optimally implemented, Rounds provide staff with a safe, reflective and confidential space to talk and support one another, the consequences of which include increased empathy and compassion for colleagues and patients, and positive changes to practice.

Perceived quality of surgical care in association with patient-related factors and correlation to reported postoperative complications in Finland: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To study if patient-related factors are associated with patient-evaluated quality of care in surgery. To examine if there is an association with postoperative complications and patient-evaluated low quality of care.

DESIGN

A correlation cross-sectional study, in addition, a phone call interview at 30 days postoperatively to examine complications.

SETTING

The data on patients admitted for non-cardiac general and orthopaedic surgery at a central hospital in Southwestern Finland were collected in two phases during an 8-month period.

PARTICIPANTS

436 consecutive consenting and eligible in-ward non-cardiac general surgery and orthopaedic surgery adult patients. Ambulatory, paediatric and memory disorder patients were excluded. 378 patients completed the questionnaire (Good Nursing Care Scale for Patients (GNCS-P)).

METHODS

Perceived quality of care was examined by the GNCS-P questionnaire. Patient-related factors were obtained from electronic patient records and questionnaire. A telephone interview related to postdischarge complications was conducted 30 days after discharge.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient evaluation of quality of care at discharge, its association with patient-related factors and patient-reported postdischarge complications.

RESULTS

The overall quality was evaluated high or very high by the patients. The lowest overall quality of care rate was assessed by surgical patients living alone (p=0.0088) and patients who evaluated their state of health moderate or poor (p=0.0047). Surgical patients reporting postoperative complications after discharge evaluated lower overall quality of care (p=0.0105) than patients with no complications.

CONCLUSION

Patient demographic factors do not seem to influence the perceptions of the quality of care. Instead, subjective state of health and living conditions (living alone) may have an influence on the patient experience of quality of care. The perceived quality of care in healthcare staff technical and communication skills may have an association with reported postoperative complications.

Understanding how front-line staff use patient experience data for service improvement: an exploratory case study evaluation

Background and aim

The NHS collects a large number of data on patient experience, but there are concerns that it does not use this information to improve care. This study explored whether or not and how front-line staff use patient experience data for service improvement.

Methods

Phase 1 – secondary analysis of existing national survey data, and a new survey of NHS trust patient experience leads. Phase 2 – case studies in six medical wards using ethnographic observations and interviews. A baseline and a follow-up patient experience survey were conducted on each ward, supplemented by in-depth interviews. Following an initial learning community to discuss approaches to learning from and improving patient experience, teams developed and implemented their own interventions. Emerging findings from the ethnographic research were shared formatively. Phase 3 – dissemination, including an online guide for NHS staff.

Key findings

Phase 1 – an analysis of staff and inpatient survey results for all 153 acute trusts in England was undertaken, and 57 completed surveys were obtained from patient experience leads. The most commonly cited barrier to using patient experience data was a lack of staff time to examine the data (75%), followed by cost (35%), lack of staff interest/support (21%) and too many data (21%). Trusts were grouped in a matrix of high, medium and low performance across several indices to inform case study selection. Phase 2 – in every site, staff undertook quality improvement projects using a range of data sources. The number and scale of these varied, as did the extent to which they drew directly on patient experience data, and the extent of involvement of patients. Before-and-after surveys of patient experience showed little statistically significant change. Making sense of patient experience ‘data’ Staff were engaged in a process of sense-making from a range of formal and informal sources of intelligence. Survey data remain the most commonly recognised and used form of data. ‘Soft’ intelligence, such as patient stories, informal comments and daily ward experiences of staff, patients and family, also fed into staff’s improvement plans, but they and the wider organisation may not recognise these as ‘data’. Staff may lack confidence in using them for improvement. Staff could not always point to a specific source of patient experience ‘data’ that led to a particular project, and sometimes reported acting on what they felt they already knew needed changing. Staff experience as a route to improving patient experience Some sites focused on staff motivation and experience on the assumption that this would improve patient experience through indirect cultural and attitudinal change, and by making staff feel empowered and supported. Staff participants identified several potential interlinked mechanisms: (1) motivated staff provide better care, (2) staff who feel taken seriously are more likely to be motivated, (3) involvement in quality improvement is itself motivating and (4) improving patient experience can directly improve staff experience. ‘Team-based capital’ in NHS settings We propose ‘team-based capital’ in NHS settings as a key mechanism between the contexts in our case studies and observed outcomes. ‘Capital’ is the extent to which staff command varied practical, organisational and social resources that enable them to set agendas, drive process and implement change. These include not just material or economic resources, but also status, time, space, relational networks and influence. Teams involving a range of clinical and non-clinical staff from multiple disciplines and levels of seniority could assemble a greater range of capital; progress was generally greater when the team included individuals from the patient experience office. Phase 3 – an online guide for NHS staff was produced in collaboration with The Point of Care Foundation.

Limitations

This was an ethnographic study of how and why NHS front-line staff do or do not use patient experience data for quality improvement. It was not designed to demonstrate whether particular types of patient experience data or quality improvement approaches are more effective than others.

Future research

Developing and testing interventions focused specifically on staff but with patient experience as the outcome, with a health economics component. Studies focusing on the effect of team composition and diversity on the impact and scope of patient-centred quality improvement. Research into using unstructured feedback and soft intelligence.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The origins and implementation of an intervention to support healthcare staff to deliver compassionate care: exploring fidelity and adaptation in the transfer of Schwartz Center Rounds® from the United States to the United Kingdom

Background

Schwartz Center Rounds® (henceforce Rounds) were developed in the United States (US) in 1995 to provide a regular, structured time and safe place for staff to meet to share the emotional, psychological and social challenges of working in healthcare. Rounds were adopted in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2009 and have been subsequently implemented in over 180 healthcare organisations. Using Rounds as a case study, we aim to inform current debates around maintaining fidelity when an intervention developed in one country is transferred and implemented in another.

Methods

Interpretive design using nine qualitative interviews (UK = 3, US = 6) and four focus groups (UK: Focus group 1 (4 participants), Focus group 2 (5 participants; US: focus group 1 (5 participants) focus group 2 (2 participants) with participants involved in Rounds design and implementation, for example, programme architects, senior leaders, mentors and trainers. We also conducted non-participant observations of Rounds (UK = 42: USA = 2) and training days (UK = 2). Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

We identified four core and seven sub-core Rounds components, based upon the US design, and seven peripheral components, based on our US and UK fieldwork. We found high core component fidelity and examples of UK adaptations. We identified six strategies used to maintain high fidelity during Rounds transfer and implementation from the US to UK settings: i) having a legal contract between the two national bodies overseeing implementation, ii) requiring adopting UK healthcare organisations to sign a contract with the national body, iii) piloting the intervention in the UK context, iv) emphasising the credibility of the intervention, v) promoting and evaluating Rounds, and vi) providing implementation support and infrastructure.

Conclusions

This study identifies how fidelity to the core components of a particular intervention was maintained during transfer from one country to another by identifying six strategies which participants argued had enhanced fidelity during transfer of Rounds to a different country, with contractual agreements and legitimacy of intervention sources key. Potential disadvantages include limitations to further innovation and adaptation.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4311-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Enhancing Safety Culture Through Improved Incident Reporting: A Case Study In Translational Research

The Imperial College Healthcare National Health Service Trust, a large health care provider in London, together with an academic research unit, used a learning health systems cycle of interventions. The goals were to improve patient safety incident reporting and learning and shape a more just organizational safety culture. Following a phase of feedback gathering from front-line staff, seven evidence-based interventions were implemented and evaluated from October 2016 to August 2018. Indicators of safety culture, incident reporting rates, and reported rates of harm to patients and "never events" (events that should not happen in medical practice) were continuously monitored. In this article we report on this initiative, including its early results. We observed improvement on some measures of safety culture and incident reporting rates. Staff members' perceptions of six of the seven interventions were positive. The intervention exercise demonstrated the importance of health care policies in supporting local ownership of safety culture and encouraging the application of rigorous research standards.

Quality Is in the Eye of the Beholder-A Focus Group Study from the Perspective of Ambulance Clinicians, Physicians, and Managers

Quality within all areas of healthcare should be systemically monitored and ensured. However, the definition of quality is complex and diverse. In the ambulance service (AS), quality has traditionally been defined as response time, but this measurement eliminates the possibility of addressing other characteristics of quality, such as the care provided. This study aimed to explore what constitutes quality in the context of the ambulance service as experienced by ambulance clinicians, physicians, and managers. A focus group study was conducted with 18 participants. The three focus groups were analyzed with the focus group method developed by Kreuger and Casey. The participants highlighted patient involvement, information and care, as well as adherence to policies, regulations, and their own standards as representing quality in the AS. This study demonstrates that quality is in the eye of the beholder. As quality seems to be viewed similarly by patients and ambulance clinicians, physicians, and managers, stakeholders should aim for a paradigm shift where patients' experience of the care is just as important as various time measures.

A realist informed mixed-methods evaluation of Schwartz Center Rounds® in England

Background

Schwartz Center Rounds®(Rounds) were introduced into the UK in 2009 to support health-care staff to deliver compassionate care, something the Francis report (Francis R.Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013) identified as lacking. Rounds are organisation-wide forums that prompt reflection and discussion of the emotional, social and ethical challenges of health-care work, with the aim of improving staff well-being and patient care.

Objectives

How, in which contexts and for whom Rounds participation affects staff well-being at work, increases social support for staff and improves patient care.

Design

(1) A scoping review of Rounds literature and comparison with alternative interventions; (2) mapping Rounds providers via a survey, telephone interviews and secondary data; (3) a two-wave survey of (i) new attenders/non-attenders in 10 sites to determine the impact on staff engagement and well-being; and (ii) interviews with Rounds attenders, non-attenders, facilitators, clinical leads, steering group members, board members and observations in nine case study sites to (4) describe experiences and (5) test candidate programme theories by which Rounds ‘work’ (realist evaluation).

Setting

(1) International literature (English); (2) all Rounds providers (acute/community NHS trusts and hospices) at 1 September 2014 (survey/interview) and 15 July 2015 (secondary data); (3) 10 survey sites; and (4 and 5) nine organisational case study sites (six of which also took part in the survey).

Participants

(1) Ten papers were reviewed for Rounds and 146 were reviewed for alternative interventions. (2) Surveys were received from 41 out of 76 (54%) providers and interviews were conducted with 45 out of 76 (59%) providers. (3) Surveys were received from 1140 out of 3815 (30%) individuals at baseline and from 500 out of 1140 (44%) individuals at follow-up. (4 and 5) A total of 177 interviews were conducted, as were observations of 42 Rounds, 29 panel preparations and 28 steering group meetings.

Results

(1) The evidence base is limited; compared with 11 alternative interventions, Rounds offer a unique organisation-wide ‘all staff’ forum in which disclosure/contribution is not essential. (2) Implementation rapidly increased between 2013 and 2015; Rounds were implemented variably; challenges included ward staff attendance and the workload and resources required to sustain Rounds; and costs were widely variable. (3) There was no change in engagement, but poor psychological well-being (12-item General Health Questionnaire) reduced significantly (p < 0.05) in Rounds attenders (25% to 12%) compared with non-attenders (37% to 34%). (4 and 5) Rounds were described as interesting, engaging and supportive; four contextual layers explained the variation in Rounds implementation. We identified four stages of Rounds, ‘core’ and ‘adaptable’ components of Rounds fidelity, and nine context–mechanism–outcome configurations: (i) trust, emotional safety and containment and (ii) group interaction were prerequisites for creating (iii) a countercultural space in Rounds where staff could (iv) tell stories, (v) self-disclose their experiences to peers and (vi) role model vulnerability; (vii) provide important context for staff and patient behaviour; (viii) shining a spotlight on hidden staff and patient stories reduced isolation and enhanced support/teamwork; and (ix) staff learned through reflection resulting in ripple effects and outcomes. Reported outcomes included increased empathy and compassion for colleagues and patients, support for staff and reported changes in practice. The impact of Rounds is cumulative and we have identified the necessary conditions for Rounds to work.

Limitations

Rounds outcomes relied on self-report, fewer regular attenders were recruited than desired, and it was not possible to observe staff post Rounds.

Conclusion

Rounds offer unique support for staff and positively influence staff well-being, empathy and compassion for patients and colleagues.

Future work

The adaptation of Rounds to new contexts and to increase reach needs evaluation.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews

OBJECTIVES

(i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds.

DESIGN

Systematic review of Rounds literature; scoping reviews of comparator interventions (action learning sets; after action reviews; Balint groups; caregiver support programme; clinical supervision; critical incident stress debriefing; mindfulness-based stress reduction; peer-supported storytelling; psychosocial intervention training; reflective practice groups; resilience training).

DATA SOURCES

PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English.

RESULTS

The overall evidence base for Rounds is limited. We developed a composite definition to aid comparison with other interventions from 41 documents containing a definition of Rounds. Twelve (10 studies) were empirical evaluations. All were of low/moderate quality (weak study designs including lack of control groups). Findings showed the value of Rounds to attenders, with a self-reported positive impact on individuals, their relationships with colleagues and patients and wider cultural changes. The evidence for the comparative interventions was scant and also low/moderate quality. Some features of Rounds were shared by other interventions, but Rounds offer unique features including being open to all staff and having no expectation for verbal contribution by attenders.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence of effectiveness for all interventions considered here remains limited. Methods that enable identification of core features related to effectiveness are needed to optimise benefit for individual staff members and organisations as a whole. A systems approach conceptualising workplace well-being arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the well-being of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff well-being.

Using Social Media to Generate and Collect Primary Data: The #ShowsWorkplaceCompassion Twitter Research Campaign

Background

Compassion is a core value embedded in the concept of quality in healthcare. The need for compassion toward healthcare staff in the workplace, for their own health and well-being and also to enable staff to deliver compassionate care for patients, is increasingly understood. However, we do not currently know how healthcare staff understand and characterize compassion toward themselves as opposed to patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to use social media for the generation and collection of primary data to gain understanding of the concept of workplace compassion.

Methods

Tweets that contained the hashtag #ShowsWorkplaceCompassion were collected from Twitter and analyzed. The study took place between April 21 and May 21, 2016. Participants were self-selecting users of the social media service Twitter. The study was promoted by a number of routes: the National Health Service (NHS) England website, the personal Twitter accounts of the research team, internal NHS England communications, and via social media sharing. Participants were asked to contribute their views about what activities, actions, policies, philosophies or approaches demonstrate workplace compassion in healthcare using the hashtag #ShowsWorkplaceCompassion. All tweets including the research hashtag #ShowsWorkplaceCompassion were extracted from Twitter and studied using content analysis. Data concerning the frequency, nature, origin, and location of Web-based engagement with the research campaign were collected using Bitly (Bitly, Inc, USA) and Symplur (Symplur LLC, USA) software.

Results

A total of 260 tweets were analyzed. Of the 251 statements within the tweets that were coded, 37.8% (95/251) of the statements concerned Leadership and Management aspects of workplace compassion, 29.5% (74/251) were grouped under the theme related to Values and Culture, 17.5% (44/251) of the statements related to Personalized Policies and Procedures that support workplace compassion, and 15.2% (38/251) of the statements concerned Activities and Actions that show workplace compassion. Content analysis showed that small acts of kindness, an embedded organizational culture of caring for one another, and recognition of the emotional and physical impact of healthcare work were the most frequently mentioned characteristics of workplace compassion in healthcare.

Conclusions

This study presents a new and innovative research approach using Twitter. Although previous research has analyzed the nature and pattern of tweets retrospectively, this study used Twitter to both recruit participants and collect primary data.

An evaluation of a near real-time survey for improving patients’ experiences of the relational aspects of care: a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

The Francis Report (of 2013) provided many recommendations to improve compassionate care in NHS organisations, including more widespread use of real-time feedback (RTF) to collect patient experience data. This research directly addressed these recommendations and aimed to provide an evidence-based toolkit to support NHS quality improvements.

Objectives

To develop and validate a survey of compassionate care for use in near real time on elderly care wards and accident and emergency (A&E) departments. This research also evaluated the effectiveness of the RTF approach for improving relational aspects of care and provides suggestions for how the approach can be used by other hospitals to strengthen compassionate care.

Design

The research utilised a mixed-methods design, using quantitative, qualitative and participatory research approaches to collect patients’ experiences of relational care and the views of NHS staff in an effort to evaluate the processes and impacts of near real-time feedback (NRTF) data collection. Data sources included a NRTF patient experience survey, weekly volunteer diaries, staff interviews and surveys, workshops and meetings with case study sites.

Setting

The research was carried out across six case study sites across England, in wards that predominantly serve elderly patients and in A&E departments.

Participants

The 3928 participants in the patient experience survey were inpatients on elderly care wards, or persons who had sought medical care in A&E. Frontline staff, service leads, senior management and volunteers also took part in surveys (n = 274) and interviews (n = 82) designed to understand the staff perspectives and opinions of collecting patient experience data.

Interventions

A patient experience survey was implemented using a tablet computer-based methodology, facilitated by trained volunteers. Responses were used alongside feedback from staff to evaluate the use of a NRTF approach as a method for improving patient experiences of relational aspects of care.

Main outcome measures

The patient experience survey measured relational aspects of care. Another outcome measure was improvements to care as planned, implemented and reported by staff.

Results

A small but statistically significant improvement (p = 0.044) in relational aspects of care over the course of the study was noted overall. Staff implemented a variety of improvements to enhance communication with patients.

Limitations

Maintaining volunteer and staff engagement throughout the study was difficult. Few surveys were completed per ward or department each week. This made examining trends in patient experiences over time challenging.

Conclusions

Near real-time feedback offers an effective approach for monitoring and improving relational aspects of care.

Future work

Staff frequently expressed a view that volunteers’ interactions with patients while administering the survey were themselves beneficial to patients. Future research should examine the impact of volunteer interactions with patients on their experiences of relational aspects of care.

Study registration

The project is registered on the Clinical Research Network portfolio under the primary trial identification number 18449.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A path analysis study of factors influencing hospital staff perceptions of quality of care factors associated with patient satisfaction and patient experience

Background

Hospital staff are interested in information on patient satisfaction and patient experience that can help them improve quality of care. Staff perceptions of quality of care have been identified as useful proxies when patient data are not available. This study explores the organizational factors and staff attitudes that influence staff perceptions of the quality of the care they provide in relation to patient satisfaction and patient experience.

Methods

Cross sectional survey completed by 258 staff of a large multi-campus, integrated metropolitan hospital in Australia. Structured equation modelling was used to analyse the data.

Results

Our data suggest that different perceived organizational factors and staff attitudes contribute to different pathways for patient satisfaction and patient experience indicators. Hospital staff in our sample were more likely to indicate they provided the care that would result in higher patient satisfaction if they felt empowered within a psychologically safe environment. Conversely their views on patient experience were related to their commitment towards their hospital. There was no relationship between the staff perceptions of patient satisfaction and the staff response to the friends and family test.

Conclusions

This study provides empirical evidence that staff perceptions of the quality of care they provide that is seen to be related to patient satisfaction and patient experience are enacted through different pathways that reflect differing perceptions of organizational factors and workplace psychological attitudes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2718-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Process redesign for time-based emergency admission targets

Purpose Hospitals have used process redesign to increase the efficiency of the emergency department (ED) to cope with increasing demand. While there are published studies suggesting a positive outcome, recent reviews have reported that it is difficult to conclude that these approaches are effective as a result of substandard research methodology. The purpose of this paper is to explore the perceptions of hospital staff on the impact of a process redesign initiative on quality of care. Design/methodology/approach A retrospective qualitative case study examining a Lean Six Sigma (LSS) initiative in a large metropolitan hospital from 2009 to 2010. Non-probability sampling identified interview subjects who, through their participation in the redesign initiative, had a detailed understanding of the implementation and outcomes of the initiative. Between April 2012 and January 2013 26 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed with thematic content analysis. Findings There were four important findings. First, when asked to comment on the impact of the LSS implementation, without prompting the staff spoke of quality of care. Second, there was little agreement among the participants as to whether the project had been successful. Third, despite the recognition of the need for a coordinated effort across the hospital to improve ED access, the redesign process was not successful in reducing existing divides among clinicians and among managers and clinicians. Finally, staff expressed tension between production processes to move patients more quickly and their duty of care to their patients as individuals. Originality/value One of the first studies to explore the impact of process redesign through in-depth interviews with participating staff, this study adds further evidence that organisations implementing process redesign must ensure the supporting management practices are in place.

What does patient feedback reveal about the NHS? A mixed methods study of comments posted to the NHS Choices online service

OBJECTIVE

To examine the key themes of positive and negative feedback in patients' online feedback on NHS (National Health Service) services in England and to understand the specific issues within these themes and how they drive positive and negative evaluation.

DESIGN

Computer-assisted quantitative and qualitative studies of 228 113 comments (28 971 142 words) of online feedback posted to the NHS Choices website. Comments containing the most frequent positive and negative evaluative words are qualitatively examined to determine the key drivers of positive and negative feedback.

PARTICIPANTS

Contributors posting comments about the NHS between March 2013 and September 2015.

RESULTS

Overall, NHS services were evaluated positively approximately three times more often than negatively. The four key areas of focus were: treatment, communication, interpersonal skills and system/organisation. Treatment exhibited the highest proportion of positive evaluative comments (87%), followed by communication (77%), interpersonal skills (44%) and, finally, system/organisation (41%). Qualitative analysis revealed that reference to staff interpersonal skills featured prominently, even in comments relating to treatment and system/organisational issues. Positive feedback was elicited in cases of staff being caring, compassionate and knowing patients'' names, while rudeness, apathy and not listening were frequent drivers of negative feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

Although technical competence constitutes an undoubtedly fundamental aspect of healthcare provision, staff members were much more likely to be evaluated both positively and negatively according to their interpersonal skills. Therefore, the findings reported in this study highlight the salience of such 'soft' skills to patients and emphasise the need for these to be focused upon and developed in staff training programmes, as well as ensuring that decisions around NHS funding do not result in demotivated and rushed staff. The findings also reveal a significant overlap between the four key themes in the ways that care is evaluated by patients.

Barriers and facilitators of a near real-time feedback approach for measuring patient experiences of hospital care

Objectives

To contribute towards the current policy directive and recommendations outlined in the Francis Report (1) to strengthen relational aspects of hospital care and increase the use of a near real-time feedback (RTF) approach. This article offers insight into the challenges and enablers faced when collecting near real-time feedback of patient experiences with trained volunteers; and using the data to facilitate improvements.

Methods

Feedback was collected from staff and volunteers before, during and after a patient experience data collection. This took the form of both formal mixed methods data collections via interviews, surveys and a diary; and informal anecdotal evidence, collected from meetings, workshops, support calls and a networking event.

Results

Various challenges and enablers associated with the RTF approach were identified. These related to technology, the setting, volunteer engagement and staff engagement. This article presents the key barriers experienced followed by methods suggested and utilised by staff and volunteers in order to counteract the difficulties faced.

Conclusions

The results from this evaluation suggest that a near real-time feedback approach, when used in a hospital setting with trained volunteers, benefits from various support structures or systems to minimise the complications or burden placed on both staff and volunteers.

•

A near real-time feedback approach to collect patient experience data in hospitals using trained volunteers.

•

Empirical and anecdotal evidence collected from hospitals to understand the success of the near real-time feedback approach.

•

Feedback from volunteers and staff explores barriers and facilitators of the approach and subsequent use of the results.

•

Various support systems and structures can mitigate challenges associated with a near real-time feedback approach.

Schwartz Centre Rounds: a new initiative in the undergraduate curriculum-what do medical students think?

BACKGROUND

Training to be a doctor and caring for patients are recognized as being stressful and demanding. The wellbeing of healthcare professionals impacts upon the wellbeing and care of patients. Schwartz Centre Rounds (SCRs), multidisciplinary meetings led by a trained facilitator and designed for hospital staff, were introduced to enhance communication and compassion, and have since been widely adopted as a way of fostering compassion. The continuum of education suggests that medical students need to develop these attributes in conjunction with resilience and maintaining empathy. The benefits of SCRs in fostering this development in medical students is unexplored. The objective of this study was to examine the potential of SCRs within the undergraduate curriculum.

METHODS

Two student-focused SCRs were piloted at a major medical school. The sessions were based on the current format implemented across the US and UK: a presentation of cases by a multidisciplinary panel followed by an open discussion with the audience. Participants were asked to complete an evaluative questionnaire immediately following the sessions. Seven students took part in a focus group to explore their views on the SCR. Data sets were examined using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Feedback was obtained from 77 % (258/334) Year 5 and 37 % (126/343) Year 6 students. Mean student ratings of the session on a five-point scale, where 1 = poor and 5 = exceptional, were 3.5 (Year 5) and 3.3 (Year 6). Over 80 % of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the presentation of cases was helpful and gave them insight into how others feel/think about caring for patients. Eighty percent said they would attend a future SCR and 64 % believed SCRs should be integrated into the curriculum. Focus group participants felt SCRs promoted reflection and processing of emotion. Students identified smaller group sizes and timing in the curriculum as ways of improving SCRs.

CONCLUSION

Students were positive about SCRs, preferring them to their current reflective practice assignments. Whether this results in sustained benefits to trainee doctors is yet to be explored. Consideration is given to overcoming the challenges that were encountered, such as optimal timing and participation. Staff training and costs are potential obstacles to adoption.

Support for compassionate care: Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of Schwartz Center Rounds in an acute general hospital

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of Schwartz Center Rounds, a multi-disciplinary forum to reflect on the emotional consequences of working in healthcare, on the staff of a large acute general hospital over a three-year period.

DESIGN

Evaluation data following each Round were collected routinely from all staff attending over this period and analysed quantitatively and qualitatively.

SETTING

An integrated university teaching trust with both acute hospital and community services in the North East of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Over the three-year period of the study, 795 participant evaluation forms were returned by staff attending the Rounds.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

A standard evaluation form completed at the end of each Round by those present, including ratings on a five-point scale against each of eight statements and an opportunity to offer additional free text comments.

RESULTS

The findings show a very positive response to all aspects of the Rounds by staff who attended. The most highly rated statement was: 'I have gained insight into how others think/feel in caring for patients'. This was reinforced by the qualitative analysis in which the primary theme was found to be Insight. There were no significant differences between disciplines/staff groups, indicating that all staff whether clinical or non-clinical responded to the Rounds equally positively.

CONCLUSIONS

Schwartz Rounds are highly valued by staff from all disciplines, and by managers and other non-clinicians as well as clinicians. They appear to have the potential to increase understanding between different staff, and so to reduce isolation and provide support.

Will MyNHS increase public confidence in care delivery?

Professor Alan Glasper from the University of Southampton discusses the potential impact of MyNHS, designed to give members of the public in England access to data to allow them to compare the performance of their local NHS hospital.

Using a national archive of patient experience narratives to promote local patient-centered quality improvement: an ethnographic process evaluation of 'accelerated' experience-based co-design

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate an accelerated form of experience-based co-design (EBCD), a type of participatory action research in which patients and staff work together to improve quality; to observe how acceleration affected the process and outcomes of the intervention.

METHODS

An ethnographic process evaluation of an adapted form of EBCD was conducted, including observations, interviews, questionnaires and documentary analysis. Whilst retaining all components of EBCD, the adapted approach replaced local patient interviews with secondary analysis of a national archive of patient experience narratives to create national trigger films; shortened the timeframe; and employed local improvement facilitators. It was tested in intensive care and lung cancer in two English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. A total of 96 clinical staff (primarily nursing and medical), and 63 patients and family members participated in co-design activities.

RESULTS

The accelerated approach proved acceptable to staff and patients; using films of national rather than local narratives did not adversely affect local NHS staff engagement, and may have made the process less threatening or challenging. Local patients felt the national films generally reflected important themes although a minority felt they were more negative than their own experience. However, they served their purpose of 'triggering' discussion between patients and staff, and the resulting 48 co-design (improvement) activities across the four pathways were similar to those in EBCD, but achieved more quickly and at lower cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Accelerated EBCD offers a rigorous and relatively cost-effective patient-centered quality improvement approach.

Facilitating an accelerated experience-based co-design project

This article describes an accelerated experience-based co-design (AEBCD) quality improvement project that was undertaken in an adult critical care setting and the facilitation of that process. In doing so the aim is to encourage other clinical settings to engage with their patients, carers and staff alike and undertake their own quality improvement project. Patient, carer and staff experience and its place in the quality sphere is outlined and the importance of capturing patient, carer and staff feedback established. Experience-based co-design (EBCD) is described along with the recently tested accelerated version of the process. An overview of the project and outline of the organisational tasks and activities undertaken by the facilitator are given. The facilitation of the process and key outcomes are discussed and reflected on. Recommendations for future undertakings of the accelerated process are given and conclusions drawn.

Testing accelerated experience-based co-design: a qualitative study of using a national archive of patient experience narrative interviews to promote rapid patient-centred service improvement

Background

Measuring, understanding and improving patients’ experiences is of central importance to health care systems, but there is debate about the best methods for gathering and understanding patient experiences and how to then use them to improve care. Experience-based co-design (EBCD) has been evaluated as a successful approach to quality improvement in health care, drawing on video narrative interviews with local patients and involving them as equal partners in co-designing quality improvements. However, the time and cost involved have been reported as a barrier to adoption. The Health Experiences Research Group at the University of Oxford collects and analyses video and audio-recorded interviews with people about their experiences of illness. It now has a national archive of around 3000 interviews, covering around 75 different conditions or topics. Selected extracts from these interviews are disseminated for a lay audience onwww.healthtalkonline.org. In this study, we set out to investigate whether or not this archive of interviews could replace the need for discovery interviews with local patients.

Objectives

To use a national video and audio archive of patient experience narratives to develop, test and evaluate a rapid patient-centred service improvement approach (‘accelerated experience-based co-design’ or AEBCD). By using national rather than local patient interviews, we aimed to halve the overall cycle from 12 to 6 months, allowing for EBCD to be conducted in two clinical pathways rather than one. We observed how this affected the process and outcomes of the intervention.

Design

The intervention was an adapted form of EBCD, a participatory action research approach in which patients and staff work together to identify and implement quality improvements. The intervention retained all six components of EBCD, but used national trigger films, shortened the time frame and employed local service improvement facilitators. An ethnographic process evaluation was conducted, including observations, interviews, questionnaires, cost and documentary analysis including previous EBCD evaluation reports.

Setting

Intensive care and lung cancer services in two English NHS hospital trusts (Royal Berkshire and Royal Brompton and Harefield).

Participants

Ninety-six clinical staff (primarily nursing and medical) and 63 patients and family members.

Intervention

For this accelerated intervention, the trigger film was derived from pre-existing national patient experience interviews. Local facilitators conducted staff discovery interviews. Thereafter, the process followed the usual EBCD pattern: the film was shown to local patients in a workshop meeting, and staff had a separate meeting to discuss the results of their feedback. Staff and patients then came together in a further workshop to view the film, agree priorities for improvement and set up co-design working groups to take these priorities forward.

Results

The accelerated approach proved readily acceptable to staff and patients; using films of national rather than local narratives did not adversely affect local NHS staff engagement, and may in some cases have made the process less threatening or challenging. Local patients felt that the national films generally reflected important themes, although a minority felt that they were more negative than their own personal experience. However, they served their purpose as a ‘trigger’ to discussion, and the resulting 48 co-design activities across the four pathways were similar in nature to those in EBCD but achieved at reduced cost. AEBCD was nearly half the cost of EBCD. However, where a trigger film already exists, pathways can be implemented for as little as 40% of the cost of traditional EBCD. It was not necessary to do additional work locally to supplement the national interviews. The intervention carried a ‘cost’ in terms of heavy workload and intensive activity for the local facilitators, but also brought benefits in terms of staff development/capacity-building. Furthermore, as in previous EBCDs, the approach was subsequently adopted in other clinical pathways in the trusts.

Conclusions

Accelerated experience-based co-design delivered an accelerated version of EBCD, generating a comparable set of improvement activities. The national film acted as an effective trigger to the co-design process. Based on the results of the evaluation, AEBCD offers a rigorous and effective patient-centred quality improvement approach. We aim to develop further trigger films from the archived material as resources permit, and to investigate different ways of conducting the analysis (e.g. involving patients in doing the analysis).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Staff perceptions of quality of care: an observational study of the NHS Staff Survey in hospitals in England

BACKGROUND

There is some evidence to suggest that higher job satisfaction among healthcare staff in specific settings may be linked to improved patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess the potential of staff satisfaction to be used as an indicator of institutional performance across all acute National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England.

METHODS

Using staff responses from the NHS Staff Survey 2009, and correlating these with hospital standardised mortality ratios (HSMR), correlation analyses were conducted at institutional level with further analyses of staff subgroups.

RESULTS

Over 60 000 respondents from 147 NHS trusts were included in the analysis. There was a weak negative correlation with HSMR where staff agreed that patient care was their trust's top priority (Kendall τ = -0.22, p<0.001), and where they would be happy with the care for a friend or relative (Kendall τ = -0.30, p<0.001). These correlations were identified across clinical and non-clinical groups, with nursing staff demonstrating the most robust correlation. There was no correlation between satisfaction with the quality of care delivered by oneself and institutional HSMR.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of the continued debate about the relationship of HSMR to hospital performance, these findings of a weak correlation between staff satisfaction and HSMR are intriguing and warrant further investigation. Such measures in the future have the advantage of being intuitive for lay and specialist audiences alike, and may be useful in facilitating patient choice. Whether higher staff satisfaction drives quality or merely reflects it remains unclear.

Computer screen saver hand hygiene information curbs a negative trend in hand hygiene behavior

BACKGROUND

Appropriate hand hygiene among health care workers is the most important infection prevention measure; however, compliance is generally low. Gain-framed messages (ie, messages that emphasize the benefits of hand hygiene rather than the risks of noncompliance) may be most effective, but have not been tested.

METHODS

The study was conducted in a 27-bed neonatal intensive care unit. We performed an interrupted time series analysis of objectively measured hand disinfection events. We used electronic devices in hand alcohol dispensers, which continuously documented the frequency of hand disinfection events. In addition, hand hygiene compliance before and after the intervention period were directly observed.

RESULTS

The negative trend in hand hygiene events per patient-day before the intervention (decrease by 2.3 [standard error, 0.5] per week) changed to a significant positive trend (increase of 1.5 [0.5] per week) after the intervention (P < .001). The direct observations confirmed these results, showing a significant improvement in hand hygiene compliance from 193 of 303 (63.6%) observed hand hygiene events at pretest to 201 of 281 (71.5%) at posttest.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that gain-framed messages concerning hand hygiene presented on screen savers may improve hand hygiene compliance.

Supporting hospital staff to provide compassionate care: do Schwartz Center Rounds work in English hospitals?

OBJECTIVE

To assess (1) whether the Schwartz Center Rounds ("Rounds"), a multidisciplinary forum which brings together hospital staff to discuss the nonclinical, social and emotional aspects of caring for patients, could transfer from the US to a UK setting; and (2) whether UK Rounds would achieve a similar positive impact on individuals and teams, and hospital culture.

DESIGN

The results reported are based on 41 qualitative interviews with context provided by additional quantitative research.

SETTING

We introduced Rounds at two pilot sites, both NHS hospitals providing acute care.

PARTICIPANTS

Over the one-year, ten-Rounds pilot period, Rounds were attended by 1250 staff across the two sites. We conducted qualitative research into the experiences of staff involved in implementing Rounds at the outset and the end of the pilot.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Interviewees' assessment of the effects of Rounds on participants, their relationships with colleagues, and the wider hospital.

RESULTS

The findings show that in the two pilot trusts, Rounds are perceived by participants as a source of support and that their benefit may translate into benefits for patients and team working; and that Rounds have the potential to effect change in the hospital culture.

CONCLUSION

Rounds appear to transfer successfully from the US to the UK, and there is some evidence that they are having a similarly positive impact, but more research is needed.

The National Adult Inpatient Survey conducted in the English National Health Service from 2002 to 2009: how have the data been used and what do we know as a result?

BACKGROUND

When it was initiated in 2001, England's national patient survey programme was one of the first in the world and has now been widely emulated in other healthcare systems. The aim of the survey programme was to make the National Health Service (NHS) more "patient centred" and more responsive to patient feedback. The national inpatient survey has now been running in England annually since 2002 gathering data from over 600,000 patients. The aim of this study is to investigate how the data have been used and to summarise what has been learned about patients' evaluation of care as a result.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically gathered all research that included analyses of the English national adult inpatient survey data. Journals, databases and relevant websites were searched. Publications prior to 2002 were excluded. Articles were also identified following consultation with experts. All documents were then critically appraised by two co-authors both of whom have a background in statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We found that the majority of the studies identified were reports produced by organisations contracted to gather the data or co-ordinate the data collection and used mainly descriptive statistics. A few articles used the survey data for evidence based reporting or linked the survey to other healthcare data. The patient's socio-demographic characteristics appeared to influence their evaluation of their care but characteristics of the workforce and the. At a national level, the results of the survey have been remarkably stable over time. Only in those areas where there have been co-ordinated government-led campaigns, targets and incentives, have improvements been shown. The main findings of the review are that while the survey data have been used for different purposes they seem to have incited little academic interest.

CONCLUSIONS

The national inpatient survey has been a useful resource for many authors and organisations but the full potential inherent in this large, longitudinal publicly available dataset about patients' experiences has not as yet been fully exploited.This review suggests that the presence of survey results alone is not enough to improve patients' experiences and further research is required to understand whether and how the survey can be best used to improve standards of care in the NHS.