Each has made positive changes to drive improvements for patients. In each case study we highlight how staff describe the journey of improvement as they experienced it.
Together their stories share some common themes. They show that one of the biggest aspects to supporting improvement across all hospitals was robust leadership. Another is meaningful engagement with staff.
In this update for 2018, we report on:
the increase in opioid prescribing across the UK
measures put in place following the Gosport Independent Panel report
our continuing concerns regarding lower schedule controlled drugs
the introduction of legislation for cannabis based medicinal products.
Our update shares the key issues raised by NHS England controlled drug accountable officers and their unaccounted-for losses of controlled drugs by NHS England area. We also give examples of issues raised and followed up through the local area networks.
The Care Quality Commission’s annual assessment of the state of health and social care in England shows that quality ratings have been maintained overall – but people’s experience of care is determined by whether they can access good care when they need it.
The report Providers deliver: better care for patients considers both the leadership approaches and frontline initiatives that underpin improvements in quality. Through 11 case study conversations, it considers some of the frontline work that has contributed to trusts’ improvements in CQC ratings, as well as exploring the role of trust leaders in providing an enabling, supportive environment in which this work has been possible.
Free access. Despite consensus that preventing patient safety events is important, measurement of safety events remains challenging. This is, in part, because they occur relatively infrequently and are not always preventable. There is also no consensus on the ‘best way‘ or the ‘best measure’ of patient safety. The purpose of all safety measures is to improve care and prevent safety events; this can be achieved by different means. If the overall goal of measuring patient safety is to capture the universe of safety events that occur, then broader measures encompassing large populations, such as those based on administrative data, may be preferable. Acknowledging the trade-off between comprehensiveness and accuracy, such measures may be better suited for surveillance and quality improvement (QI), rather than public reporting/reimbursement. Conversely, using measures for public reporting and pay-for-performance requires more narrowly focused measures that favour accuracy over comprehensiveness, such as those with restricted denominators or those based on medical record review.
Health systems invest in diabetes quality improvement (QI) programmes to reduce the gap between research evidence of optimal care and current care.1 Examples of commonly used QI strategies in diabetes include programmes to measure and report quality of care (ie, audit and feedback initiatives), implementation of clinician and patient education, and reminder systems. A recent systematic review of randomised trials of QI programmes indicates that they can successfully improve quality of diabetes care and patient outcomes.2 Changes in surrogate markers such as blood glucose control, blood pressure or cholesterol levels are used to measure QI intervention effectiveness.2
However, investments in QI strategies are only worthwhile if the programmes that effectively improve care are sustained after trial completion.3. To read the full article, log in using your NHS OpenAthens details.
Open access. Lean is commonly adopted in healthcare to increase quality of care and efficiency. Few studies of Lean involve staff-related outcomes, and few have a longitudinal design. Thus, the aim was to examine the extent to which changes over time in Lean maturity are associated with changes over time in care-giving, thriving and exhaustion, as perceived by staff, with a particular emphasis on the extent to which job demands and job resources, as perceived by staff, have a moderated mediation effect.
Open access. The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) method is widely used in quality improvement (QI) strategies. However, previous studies have indicated that methodological problems are frequent in PDSA-based QI projects. Furthermore, it has been difficult to establish an association between the use of PDSA and improvements in clinical practices and patient outcomes. The aim of this systematic review was to examine whether recently published PDSA-based QI projects show self-reported effects and are conducted according to key features of the method.
Clinical negligence claims are costly events, both in terms of the harm caused and the expense that results. Helen Vernon, Chief Executive of NHS Resolution, discusses the importance of generating and sharing insight from the harm that can result in clinical negligence claims.
This guideline covers identifying and managing depression in children and young people aged 5 to 18 years. Based on the stepped-care model, it aims to improve recognition and assessment and promote effective treatments for mild and moderate to severe depression.
Book review. Writing to Improve Healthcare, edited and authored by David P. Stevens, is a timely and important book that is designed to help quality improvers publish their quality improvement (QI) work. (Dr Stevens was the previous Editor-in-Chief of this journal, when it was called Quality & Safety in Healthcare.) The book is unique in that it applies a healthcare improvement perspective to the traditional manuscript preparation and publication process. This is useful for the novice writer and for authors accustomed to writing more traditional clinical research studies or writing for other biomedical fields. Indeed, while some prospective authors of QI work may not be first-time writers, this may be the …...To read the full article, log in using your MPFT NHS OpenAthens details. To read a copy of the book in this review, please contact the library
To offer a better experience to service users on their ward, the team at Horizon Centre in Wakefield have introduced new ways of collecting patient feedback in order to see what they’re doing well and where they could make improvements.
The steps between receiving a query or referral and allocating it to the right team is shown below. In this resource, we have referred to this as the 'access process'. Getting this process right can improve waiting times, patient flow and quality of care.