How might health services capture patient-reported safety concerns in a hospital setting? An exploratory pilot study of three mechanisms.

INTRODUCTION: Emergent evidence suggests that patients can identify and report safety issues while in hospital. However, little is known about the best method for collecting information from patients about safety concerns. This study presents an exploratory pilot of three mechanisms for collecting data on safety concerns from patients during their hospital stay. METHOD: Three mechanisms for capturing safety concerns were coproduced with healthcare professionals and patients, before being tested in an exploratory trial using cluster randomisation at the ward level. Nine wards participated, with each mechanism being tested over a 3-month study period. Patients were asked to feed back safety concerns via the mechanism on their ward (interviewing at their bedside, paper-based form or patient safety 'hotline'). Safety concerns were subjected to a two-stage review process to identify those that would meet the definition of a patient safety incident. Differences between mechanisms on a range of outcomes were analysed using inferential statistics. Safety concerns were thematically analysed to develop reporting categories. RESULTS: 178 patients were recruited. Patients in the face-to-face interviewing condition provided significantly more safety concerns per patient (1.91) compared with the paper-based form (0.92) and the patient safety hotline (0.43). They were also significantly more likely to report one or more concerns, with 64% reporting via the face-to-face mechanism, compared with 41% via the paper-based form and 19% via the patient safety hotline. No mechanism differed significantly in the number of classified patient safety incidents or physician-rated preventability and severity. DISCUSSION: Interviewing at the patient's bedside is likely to be the most effective means of gathering safety concerns from inpatients, potentially providing an opportunity for health services to gather patient feedback about safety from their perspective.

Developing a patient measure of safety (PMOS).

BACKGROUND: Tools that proactively identify factors that contribute to accidents have been developed within high-risk industries. Although patients provide feedback on their experience of care in hospitals, there is no existing measure which asks patients to comment on the factors that contribute to patient safety incidents. The aim of the current study was to determine those contributory factors from the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework (YCFF) that patients are able to identify in a hospital setting and to use this information to develop a patient measure of safety (PMOS). METHODS: Thirty-three qualitative interviews with a representative sample of patients from six units in a teaching hospital in the north of England were carried out. Patients were asked either to describe their most recent/current hospital experience (unstructured) or were asked to describe their experience in relation to specific contributory factors (structured). Responses were coded using the YCFF. Face validity of the PMOS was tested with 12 patients and 12 health professionals, using a 'think aloud' approach, and appropriate revisions made. The research was supported by two patient representatives. RESULTS: Patients were able to comment on/identify 13 of the 20 contributory factors contained within the YCFF domains. They identified contributory factors relating to communication and individual factors more frequently, and contributory factors relating to team factors, and support from central functions less frequently. In addition, they identified one theme not included in the YCFF: dignity and respect. The draft PMOS showed acceptable face validity. DISCUSSION: Patients are able to identify factors which contribute to the safety of their care. The PMOS provides a way of systematically assessing these and has the potential to help health professionals and healthcare organisations understand and identify, safety concerns from the patients' perspective, and, in doing so, make appropriate service improvements.

A new role for nurses as Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinicians in Primary Care Trusts in England.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinician initiative in England. One of the objectives was to examine the impact of the Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinicians' clinical background on how they perform their role. This study compares nurses and General Practitioners in the Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinician role. BACKGROUND: The Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinician initiative developed from the National Health Service Cancer Plan. Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinicians are expected to work strategically to raise the standards of cancer care within primary care. METHODS: A postal questionnaire survey was sent to Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinicians and one manager in each Primary Care Trust in England. Telephonic interviews were also undertaken with a range of stakeholders in six case study areas. RESULTS: There were striking similarities between nurses and General Practitioners in the Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinician role. Differences related to the wider roles of the two groups. Nurses placed greater emphasis on fitting in whereas General Practitioners were more likely to expect to take charge and look for administrative support. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to show that whether the Primary Care Cancer Lead Clinician was a nurse or a General Practitioner was less important than having local credibility and the support of their Primary Care Trust.

Developing cancer services strategy in primary care in England: primary care trust managers' views of the primary care cancer leads initiative.

PURPOSE: Primary care cancer lead clinicians (PCCLs) act strategically in primary care trusts (PCTs) in England to improve communication and understanding of cancer across primary and secondary care and provide a link between Cancer Networks and primary care. The aim is to evaluate the first three years of the initiative. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A postal questionnaire was sent to all PCT chief executives in all PCTs in England and some were passed on to other PCT managers for completion. The response rate was 61 per cent. PCT directors of public health were the largest group of respondents (29 per cent). Most (74 per cent) PCCLs were GPs and 22 per cent were nurses. FINDINGS: PCCLs were most likely to focus on palliative care and preventive services. Key achievements were identified as raising awareness of cancer, developing relationships and promoting primary care. The personal skills of the PCCLs were important as was support of colleagues at all levels. Lack of time was a major barrier to achievement, as was a lack of understanding of the role from others. Links with the Cancer Networks were being developed. About 85 per cent of managers wanted the role to continue. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper illustrates that PCCLs are at the forefront of improving cancer services in primary care. They are particularly important in view of the priority of reducing premature deaths and promotion of healthy lifestyles.