Fidelity and the impact of patient safety huddles on teamwork and safety culture: an evaluation of the Huddle Up for Safer Healthcare (HUSH) project.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Safety Huddle (PSH) is a brief multidisciplinary daily meeting held to discuss threats to patient safety and actions to mitigate risk. Despite growing interest and application of huddles as a mechanism for improving safety, evidence of their impact remains limited. There is also variation in how huddles are conceived and implemented with insufficient focus on their fidelity (the extent to which delivered as planned) and potential ways in which they might influence outcomes. The Huddle Up for Safer Healthcare (HUSH) project attempted to scale up the implementation of patient safety huddles (PSHs) in five hospitals - 92 wards - across three UK NHS Trusts. This paper aims to assess their fidelity, time to embed, and impact on teamwork and safety culture. METHODS: A multi-method Developmental Evaluation was conducted. The Stages of Implementation Checklist (SIC) was used to determine time taken to embed PSHs. Observations were used to check embedded status and fidelity of PSH. A Teamwork and Safety Climate survey (TSC) was administered at two time-points: pre- and post-embedding. Changes in TSC scores were calculated for Trusts, job role and clinical speciality. RESULTS: Observations confirmed PSHs were embedded in 64 wards. Mean fidelity score was 4.9/9. PSHs frequently demonstrated a 'fear free' space while Statistical Process Control charts and historical harms were routinely omitted. Analysis showed a positive change for the majority (26/27) of TSC questions and the overall safety grade of the ward. CONCLUSIONS: PSHs are feasible and effective for improving teamwork and safety culture, especially for nurses. PSH fidelity criteria may need adjusting to include factors deemed most useful by frontline staff. Future work should examine inter-disciplinary and role-based differences in TSC outcomes.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of a complex quality improvement intervention for acute kidney injury: A qualitative evaluation of stakeholder perceptions of the Tackling AKI study.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury in hospital patients is common and associated with reduced survival and higher healthcare costs. The Tackling Acute Kidney Injury (TAKI) quality improvement project aimed to reduce mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury by implementing a multicomponent intervention comprising of an electronic alert, care bundle and education in five UK hospitals across a variety of wards. A parallel developmental evaluation using a case study approach was conducted to provide the implementation teams with insights into factors that might impact intervention implementation and fidelity. The qualitative element of the evaluation will be reported. METHODS: 29 semi-structured interviews with implementation teams across the five hospitals were carried out to identify perceived barriers and enablers to implementation. Interviews were taped and transcribed verbatim and Framework analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Interviews generated four 'barriers and enablers' to implementation themes: i) practical/contextual factors, ii) skills and make-up of the TAKI implementation team, iii) design, development and implementation approach, iv) staff knowledge, attitudes, behaviours and support. Enablers included availability of specialist teams (e.g. educational teams), multi-disciplinary implementation teams with strong leadership, team-based package completion and proactive staff. Barriers were frequently the converse of facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Despite diversity of sites, a range of common local factors-contextual, intervention-based and individual-were identified as potential barriers and enablers to fidelity, including intervention structure/design and process of/approach to implementation. Future efforts should focus on early identification and management of barriers and tailored optimisation of known enablers such as leadership and multidisciplinary teams to encourage buy-in. Improved measures of real-time intervention and implementation fidelity would further assist local teams to target their support during such quality improvement initiatives.

An Organizational-Level Program of Intervention for AKI: A Pragmatic Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Variable standards of care may contribute to poor outcomes associated with AKI. We evaluated whether a multifaceted intervention (AKI e-alerts, an AKI care bundle, and an education program) would improve delivery of care and patient outcomes at an organizational level. METHODS: A multicenter, pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial was performed in five UK hospitals, involving patients with AKI aged ≥18 years. The intervention was introduced sequentially across fixed three-month periods according to a randomly determined schedule until all hospitals were exposed. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, with pre-specified secondary endpoints and a nested evaluation of care process delivery. The nature of the intervention precluded blinding, but data collection and analysis were independent of project delivery teams. RESULTS: We studied 24,059 AKI episodes, finding an overall 30-day mortality of 24.5%, with no difference between control and intervention periods. Hospital length of stay was reduced with the intervention (decreases of 0.7, 1.1, and 1.3 days at the 0.5, 0.6, and 0.7 quantiles, respectively). AKI incidence increased and was mirrored by an increase in the proportion of patients with a coded diagnosis of AKI. Our assessment of process measures in 1048 patients showed improvements in several metrics including AKI recognition, medication optimization, and fluid assessment. CONCLUSIONS: A complex, hospital-wide intervention to reduce harm associated with AKI did not reduce 30-day AKI mortality but did result in reductions in hospital length of stay, accompanied by improvements in in quality of care. An increase in AKI incidence likely reflected improved recognition.

Evaluating a project to improve care of older people in Scotland.

This is the second of two articles on an innovative pilot study in Scotland attempting to promote evidence-based practice in the nursing care of older people in a variety of residential care settings. This article documents findings from a qualitative process evaluation of the experiences of the eight nurse clinicians who participated in the pilot. The evaluation provided valuable insights into how future schemes might be enhanced.

Perspectives on epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities: comparison of family carer, staff carer and clinician score profiles on the Glasgow Epilepsy Outcome Scale (GEOS).

PURPOSE: Clinical practice with people with intellectual disability relies heavily upon caregiver report. Crucially, the carer's perspective may depend upon his or her relationship to the patient. We investigated similarities and differences within and between family and paid carers in their reports on the Glasgow Epilepsy Outcome Scale (GEOS), an instrument that quantifies concerns about epilepsy in this population [Epilepsia 42 (2001) 1043]. METHODS: GEOS forms were available on 186 patients (108 males; mean age 39 years) across 384 primary respondents (141 staff, 83 family, 160 clinicians) and independently completed secondary respondents (67 staff, 36 family). Data were analysed to consider levels of concern as rated bv staff carers, family members and clinicians, and also to consider inter-rater agreement on the concerns raised. RESULTS: There were significant differences in the magnitude of concern on each sub-scale [concerns about seizures, treatment, caring and social impact; range of F(2,171)=9.5-64.7; all P<0.0001]. Post hoc testing revealed that family members scored all sub-scales more highly than staff carers or clinicians, and that staff carers scored more highly than clinicians on all but one sub-scale. Inter-rater agreement between family members was considerably higher (range of r=0.69-0.91) than between staff carers (r=0.30-0.47) across the GEOS sub-scales. Association between staff and family ratings was also modest (r< or = 0.39). CONCLUSIONS: It is preferable for the same staff member to complete each administration of the GEOS because of inter-staff variability in reporting of concerns. Families provide a consistent, but more extreme, picture and clinicians generally underestimate the concerns of direct caregivers. However, content of concerns varies relatively little across respondents.