Quality and safety between ward and board: a biography of artefacts study

Requirements for a Dashboard to Support Quality Improvement Teams in Pain Management

Pain management is often considered lower priority than many other aspects of health management in hospitals. However, there is potential for Quality Improvement (QI) teams to improve pain management by visualising and exploring pain data sets. Although dashboards are already used by QI teams in hospitals, there is limited evidence of teams accessing visualisations to support their decision making. This study aims to identify the needs of the QI team in a UK Critical Care Unit (CCU) and develop dashboards that visualise longitudinal data on the efficacy of patient pain management to assist the team in making informed decisions to improve pain management within the CCU. This research is based on an analysis of transcripts of interviews with healthcare professionals with a variety of roles in the CCU and their evaluation of probes. We identified two key uses of pain data: direct patient care (focusing on individual patient data) and QI (aggregating data across the CCU and over time); in this paper, we focus on the QI role. We have identified how CCU staff currently interpret information and determine what supplementary information can better inform their decision making and support sensemaking. From these, a set of data visualisations has been proposed, for integration with the hospital electronic health record. These visualisations are being iteratively refined in collaboration with CCU staff and technical staff responsible for maintaining the electronic health record. The paper presents user requirements for QI in pain management and a set of visualisations, including the design rationale behind the various methods proposed for visualising and exploring pain data using dashboards.

Institutional use of National Clinical Audits by healthcare providers

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Healthcare systems worldwide devote significant resources towards collecting data to support care quality assurance and improvement. In the United Kingdom, National Clinical Audits are intended to contribute to these objectives by providing public reports of data on healthcare treatment and outcomes, but their potential for quality improvement in particular is not realized fully among healthcare providers. Here, we aim to explore this outcome from the perspective of hospital boards and their quality committees: an under-studied area, given the emphasis in previous research on the audits' use by clinical teams.

METHODS

We carried out semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 54 staff in different clinical and management settings in five English National Health Service hospitals about their use of NCA data, and the circumstances that supported or constrained such use. We used Framework Analysis to identify themes within their responses.

RESULTS

We found that members and officers of hospitals' governing bodies perceived an imbalance between the benefits to their institutions from National Clinical Audits and the substantial resources consumed by participating in them. This led some to question the audits' legitimacy, which could limit scope for improvements based on audit data, proposed by clinical teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Measures to enhance the audits' perceived legitimacy could help address these limitations. These include audit suppliers moving from an emphasis on cumulative, retrospective reports to real-time reporting, clearly presenting the "headline" outcomes important to institutional bodies and staff. Measures may also include further negotiation between hospitals, suppliers and their commissioners about the nature and volume of data the latter are expected to collect; wider use by hospitals of routine clinical data to populate audit data fields; and further development of interactive digital technologies to help staff explore and report audit data in meaningful ways.

Patient safety from executive hospital management to wards: A qualitative study identifying factors influencing implementation

AIM

To examine the journey of safety initiatives from executive hospital management to ward.

BACKGROUND

Hospital management teams are often responsible for identifying safety priorities and ensuring delivery of these.

METHOD

Naturalistic study design within a large NHS Hospital Trust. Using semi-structured interviews, focus groups and secondary data analysis, the study examines the implementation of safety initiatives.

RESULTS

While hospital management developed five safety initiatives, only one of these (falls prevention) was actually seen to permeate all layers of the organisation. Other initiatives stopped one layer down. Both middle management and ward staff added to the list of initiatives developed, resulting in 16 priorities. A range of positive and negative influences to successful implementation are identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety initiatives need positive reinforcement at all levels to be addressed appropriately. The research suggests that a model related to improvement science may prove useful in ensuring that priorities are addressed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Care should be taken to ensure that safety initiatives are successfully implemented at all levels within an organisation. Identifying priorities with staff and sharing values and priorities are a key approach to leading such initiatives.