An evaluation of experiences and views of Scottish leadership training opportunities amongst primary care professionals.

AIM: To determine experiences of leadership training of six primary care professions in Scotland and consider future development. METHODS: A questionnaire on previous leadership course attendance and future intentions was distributed to community pharmacists, general dental practitioners, general practitioners, practice nurses, practice managers and optometrists. Analysis comprised descriptive statistics for closed questions and management of textual data. RESULTS: Formal leadership training participation was fairly low except for practice managers. Leadership was perceived to facilitate development of staff, problem-solving and team working. Preference for future delivery was similar across the six professions with e-modules and small group learning being preferred. Time and financial pressures to undertake courses were common barriers for professionals. CONCLUSION: Leadership is key to improve quality, safety and efficiency of care and help deliver innovative services and transformative change. To date, leadership provision for primary care professionals has typically been patchy, uni-disciplinary in focus and undertaken outwith work environments. Future development must reflect needs of busy primary care professionals and the reality of team working to deliver integrated services at local level.

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Significant Event Analysis: Exploring Personal Impact and Applying Systems Thinking in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Significant event analysis (SEA) is well established in many primary care settings but can be poorly implemented. Reasons include the emotional impact on clinicians and limited knowledge of systems thinking in establishing why events happen and formulating improvements. To enhance SEA effectiveness, we developed and tested "guiding tools" based on human factors principles. METHODS: Mixed-methods development of guiding tools (Personal Booklet-to help with emotional demands and apply a human factors analysis at the individual level; Desk Pad-to guide a team-based systems analysis; and a written Report Format) by a multiprofessional "expert" group and testing with Scottish primary care practitioners who submitted completed enhanced SEA reports. Evaluation data were collected through questionnaire, telephone interviews, and thematic analysis of SEA reports. RESULTS: Overall, 149/240 care practitioners tested the guiding tools and submitted completed SEA reports (62.1%). Reported understanding of how to undertake SEA improved postintervention (P < .001), while most agreed that the Personal Booklet was practical (88/123, 71.5%) and relevant to dealing with related emotions (93/123, 75.6%). The Desk Pad tool helped focus the SEA on systems issues (85/123, 69.1%), while most found the Report Format clear (94/123, 76.4%) and would recommend it (88/123, 71.5%). Most SEA reports adopted a systems approach to analyses (125/149, 83.9%), care improvement (74/149, 49.7), or planned actions (42/149, 28.2%). DISCUSSION: Applying human factors principles to SEA potentially enables care teams to gain a systems-based understanding of why things go wrong, which may help with related emotional demands and with more effective learning and improvement.

Quality improvement and person-centredness: a participatory mixed methods study to develop the 'always event' concept for primary care.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To ascertain from patients what really matters to them on a personal level of such high importance that it should 'always happen' when they interact with healthcare professionals and staff groups. (2) To critically review existing criteria for selecting 'always events' (AEs) and generate a candidate list of AE examples based on the patient feedback data. DESIGN: Mixed methods study informed by participatory design principles. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Convenience samples of patients with a long-term clinical condition in Scottish general practices. RESULTS: 195 patients from 13 general practices were interviewed (n=65) or completed questionnaires (n=130). 4 themes of high importance to patients were identified from which examples of potential 'AEs' (n=8) were generated: (1) emotional support, respect and kindness (eg, "I want all practice team members to show genuine concern for me at all times"); (2) clinical care management (eg, "I want the correct treatment for my problem"); (3) communication and information (eg, "I want the clinician who sees me to know my medical history") and (4) access to, and continuity of, healthcare (eg, "I want to arrange appointments around my family and work commitments"). Each 'AE' was linked to a system process or professional behaviour that could be measured to facilitate improvements in the quality of patient care. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first known attempt to develop the AE concept as a person-centred approach to quality improvement in primary care. Practice managers were able to collect data from patients on what they 'always want' in terms of expectations related to care quality from which a list of AE examples was generated that could potentially be used as patient-driven quality improvement (QI) measures. There is strong implementation potential in the Scottish health service. However, further evaluation of the utility of the method is also necessary.

Participatory design of a preliminary safety checklist for general practice.

BACKGROUND: The use of checklists to minimise errors is well established in high reliability, safety-critical industries. In health care there is growing interest in checklists to standardise checking processes and ensure task completion, and so provide further systemic defences against error and patient harm. However, in UK general practice there is limited experience of safety checklist use. AIM: To identify workplace hazards that impact on safety, health and wellbeing, and performance, and codesign a standardised checklist process. DESIGN AND SETTING: Application of mixed methods to identify system hazards in Scottish general practices and develop a safety checklist based on human factors design principles. METHOD: A multiprofessional 'expert' group (n = 7) and experienced front-line GPs, nurses, and practice managers (n = 18) identified system hazards and developed and validated a preliminary checklist using a combination of literature review, documentation review, consensus building workshops using a mini-Delphi process, and completion of content validity index exercise. RESULTS: A prototype safety checklist was developed and validated consisting of six safety domains (for example, medicines management), 22 sub-categories (for example, emergency drug supplies) and 78 related items (for example, stock balancing, secure drug storage, and cold chain temperature recording). CONCLUSION: Hazards in the general practice work system were prioritised that can potentially impact on the safety, health and wellbeing of patients, GP team members, and practice performance, and a necessary safety checklist prototype was designed. However, checklist efficacy in improving safety processes and outcomes is dependent on user commitment, and support from leaders and promotional champions. Although further usability development and testing is necessary, the concept should be of interest in the UK and internationally.