Rapid evaluation of the Special Measures for Quality and challenged provider regimes: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Health-care organisations in England that are rated as inadequate for leadership and one other domain enter the Special Measures for Quality regime to receive support and oversight. A 'watch list' of challenged providers that are at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality also receive support. Knowledge is limited about whether or not the support interventions drive improvements in quality, the costs of the support interventions and whether or not the support interventions strike the right balance between support and scrutiny. Objective: To analyse the responses of trusts to the implementation of (1) interventions for Special Measures for Quality trusts and (2) interventions for challenged provider trusts to determine their impact on these organisations' capacity to achieve and sustain quality improvements. Design: This was rapid research comprising five interrelated workstreams: (1) a literature review using systematic methods; (2) an analysis of policy documents and interviews at the national level; (3) eight multisite, mixed-methods trust case studies; (4) an analysis of national performance and workforce indicators; and (5) an economic analysis. Results: The Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were intended to be 'support' programmes. Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes had an emotional impact on staff. Perceptions of NHS Improvement interventions were mixed overall. Senior leadership teams were a key driver of change, with strong clinical input being vital. Local systems have a role in improvement. Trusts focus efforts to improve across multiple domains. Internal and external factors contribute to positive performance trajectories. Nationally, only 15.8% of Special Measures for Quality trusts exited the regime in 24 months. Entry into Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes resulted in changes in quality indicators (such the number of patients waiting in emergency departments for more than 4 hours, mortality and the number of delayed transfers of care) that were more positive than national trends. The trends in staff sickness and absence improved after trusts left Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes. There was some evidence that staff survey results improved. No association was found between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes and referral to treatment times or cancer treatment waiting times. NHS Improvement spending in case study trusts was mostly directed at interventions addressing 'training on cultural change' (33.6%), 'workforce quality and safety' (21.7%) and 'governance and assurance' (18.4%). The impact of Special Measures for Quality on financial stability was equivocal; most trusts exiting Special Measures for Quality experienced the same financial stability before and after exiting. Limitations: The rapid research design and 1-year time frame precludes longitudinal observations of trusts and local systems. The small number of indicators limited the quantitative analysis of impact. Measurement of workforce effects was limited by data availability. Conclusions: Empirical evidence of positive impacts of Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider regimes were identified; however, perceptions were mixed. Key lessons were that (1) time is needed to implement and embed changes; (2) ways to mitigate emotional costs and stigma are needed; (3) support strategies should be more trust specific; (4) poor organisational performance needs to be addressed within local systems; (5) senior leadership teams with stability, strong clinical input and previous Special Measures for Quality experience helped to enact change; (6) organisation-wide quality improvement strategies and capabilities are needed; (7) staff engagement and an open-listening culture promote continuous learning and a quality improvement 'mindset', which is critical for sustainable improvement; and (8) consideration of the level of sustainable funds required to improve patients' outcomes is needed. Future work: Future work could include evaluating recent changes to the regimes, the role of local systems and longitudinal approaches. Study registration: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019131024). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

When health-care trusts in England have serious failings in the quality of care that they provide, they can be placed in 'Special Measures for Quality' and receive additional support from the NHS. There is also a list of 'challenged providers' at risk of entering Special Measures for Quality that receive support. In January 2019, of the 234 trusts in England, one-quarter had at some point been a challenged provider and/or entered Special Measures for Quality. We studied how trusts responded to entering the Special Measures for Quality or challenged provider regimes. We wanted to understand if the support that the trusts receive can help the trust to improve the quality of care provided to patients. We did this by reviewing the relevant literature; speaking to a range of staff in eight trusts and nearby health organisations; analysing costs; and observing meetings in four of these trusts. We also compared national performance information between Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts and non-Special Measures for Quality/challenged provider trusts. We found that when a trust enters the Special Measures for Quality regime there is often an emotional impact on staff, who may experience low morale. Some staff thought that their trust received the right type of support, but others saw Special Measures for Quality as heavy-handed scrutiny or punishment. With hindsight, Special Measures for Quality was sometimes viewed more positively, as a pathway to make changes that were needed. Looking at all trusts in England, we found that when trusts entered Special Measures for Quality or became challenged providers they started to get better at seeing emergency department patients within 4 hours and reduced avoidable deaths. We also found that some parts of the staff survey results improved. We found that staff need time and space to make changes. Looking after staff and having a leadership and culture that supports continuous learning are important for making improvements. Regional health-care systems and local organisations have an important role to play in supporting trusts to make improvements.

An early intervention for adolescent depression targeting emotional mental images and memory specificity: a process evaluation.

We have evaluated a novel early intervention for adolescent depression (age 16-18) in a feasibility randomised controlled trial. This nested process evaluation aimed to understand how this complex intervention worked. We sought to understand participants' views and experiences of receiving and interacting with the intervention to evaluate whether the underpinning theoretical basis of the intervention is justified and whether it contributes to valued outcomes for participants. Twelve participants were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Framework analysis was employed to identify important aspects of adolescents' experiences. The active ingredients identified by participants were consistent with and extended our understanding of the theoretical basis of the intervention. Four principle themes were identified: understanding how memory works and being able to remember memories in more detail; processing negative experiences and letting go; imagining positive future events; and understanding and being kinder to myself. The outcomes of the intervention were valued by participants. Six principle themes were identified: improving mood and well-being; reducing impact of negative memories; motivation and goal-directed behaviour; overcoming avoidance and rumination; relationships, communication and being open; and self-understanding and acceptance. A simplified logic model is also proposed to connect the intervention components, active ingredients, and valued outcomes. The findings provide an in-depth understanding of how participants interacted with the intervention and what they derived from it. For example, the findings establish processing negative experiences as a core intervention component, extend it to include letting go of these memories, and highlight that reducing the impact of negative memories is valued by participants. This richer understanding guides further intervention development and future implementation.

Addressing backlogs and managing waiting lists during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic

In order to restore services to pre-pandemic levels and catch up on care, we need to understand and act on what we have learned from the pandemic, including investing in the health workforce, increasing funding for the health infrastructure of the future, and maintaining the innovative forms of service delivery that proved useful in reaching out to key groups affected by the pandemic. This brief is a valuable resource for policy-makers seeking to understand the extent of disruption to health services caused by COVID-19, the reasons behind this, and what different countries are doing in response. Its aim is to provide options to reduce service backlogs for those who are addressing this challenge in their national contexts.