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.

Implementing national patient safety alerts.

National patient safety alerts are sometimes difficult to implement in an effective way. All trusts have to declare compliance with alerts as part of a three-step process to improve patient safety. This article discusses an alternative way of implementing national patient safety alerts and describes how behaviour-change methods can be used to successfully implement lasting changes in practice at ward or departmental level.

Collaborating with front-line healthcare professionals: the clinical and cost effectiveness of a theory based approach to the implementation of a national guideline.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines are an integral part of healthcare. Whilst much progress has been made in ensuring that guidelines are well developed and disseminated, the gap between routine clinical practice and current guidelines often remains wide. A key reason for this gap is that implementation of guidelines typically requires a change in the behaviour of healthcare professionals - but the behaviour change component is often overlooked. We adopted the Theoretical Domains Framework Implementation (TDFI) approach for supporting behaviour change required for the uptake of a national patient safety guideline to reduce the risk of feeding through misplaced nasogastric tubes. METHODS: The TDFI approach was used in a pre-post study in three NHS hospitals with a fourth acting as a control (with usual care and no TDFI). The target behavior identified for change was to increase the use of pH testing as the first line method for checking the position of a nasogastric tube. Repeat audits were undertaken in each hospital following intervention implementation. We used Zou's modified Poisson regression approach with robust standard errors to estimate risk ratios for the use of pH testing. The projected return on investment (ROI) was also calculated. RESULTS: Following intervention implementation, the use of pH first line increased significantly across intervention hospitals [risk ratio (95% CI) ranged from 3.1 (1.14 to8.43) p < .05, to 8.14 (3.06 to21.67) p < .001] compared to the control hospital, which remained unchanged [risk ratio (CI) = .77 (.47-1.26) p = .296]. The estimated savings and costs in the first year were £2.56 million and £1.41 respectively, giving an ROI of 82%, and this was projected to increase to 270% over five years. CONCLUSION: The TDFI approach improved the uptake of a patient safety guideline across three hospitals. The TDFI approach is clinically and cost effective in comparison to the usual practice.

The demonstration of a theory-based approach to the design of localized patient safety interventions.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence of unsafe care in healthcare systems globally. Interventions to implement recommended practice often have modest and variable effects. Ideally, selecting and adapting interventions according to local contexts should enhance effects. However, the means by which this can happen is seldom systematic, based on theory, or made transparent. This work aimed to demonstrate the applicability, feasibility, and acceptability of a theoretical domains framework implementation (TDFI) approach for co-designing patient safety interventions. METHODS: We worked with three hospitals to support the implementation of evidence-based guidance to reduce the risk of feeding into misplaced nasogastric feeding tubes. Our stepped process, informed by the TDF and key principles from implementation literature, entailed: involving stakeholders; identifying target behaviors; identifying local factors (barriers and levers) affecting behavior change using a TDF-based questionnaire; working with stakeholders to generate specific local strategies to address key barriers; and supporting stakeholders to implement strategies. Exit interviews and audit data collection were undertaken to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this approach. RESULTS: Following audit and discussion, implementation teams for each Trust identified the process of checking the positioning of nasogastric tubes prior to feeding as the key behavior to target. Questionnaire results indicated differences in key barriers between organizations. Focus groups generated innovative, generalizable, and adaptable strategies for overcoming barriers, such as awareness events, screensavers, equipment modifications, and interactive learning resources. Exit interviews identified themes relating to the benefits, challenges, and sustainability of this approach. Time trend audit data were collected for 301 patients over an 18-month period for one Trust, suggesting clinically significant improved use of pH and documentation of practice following the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF is a feasible and acceptable framework to guide the implementation of patient safety interventions. The stepped TDFI approach engages healthcare professionals and facilitates contextualization in identifying the target behavior, eliciting local barriers, and selecting strategies to address those barriers. This approach may be of use to implementation teams and policy makers, although our promising findings confirm the need for a more rigorous evaluation; a balanced block evaluation is currently underway.

Development and initial validation of the Influences on Patient Safety Behaviours Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the factors that make it more or less likely that healthcare practitioners (HCPs) will perform certain patient safety behaviors is important in developing effective intervention strategies. A questionnaire to identify determinants of HCP patient safety behaviors does not currently exist. This study reports the development and initial validation of the Influences on Patient Safety Behaviors Questionnaire (IPSBQ) based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-three HCPs from three acute National Health Service Hospital Trusts in the United Kingdom completed the 34-item measure focusing on one specific patient safety behavior (using pH as the first line method for checking the position of a nasogastric tube). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was undertaken to generate the model of best fit. RESULTS: The final questionnaire consisted of 11 factors and 23 items, and CFA produced a reasonable fit: χ² (175) = 345.7, p < 0.001; CMIN/DF = 1.98; GFI = 0.90 and RMSEA = 0.06, as well as adequate levels of discriminant validity, and internal consistency (r = 0.21 to 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: A reliable and valid theoretically underpinned measure of determinants of HCP patient safety behavior has been developed. The criterion validity of the measure is still unknown and further work is necessary to confirm the reliability and validity of this measure for other patient safety behaviors.

Training and action for patient safety: embedding interprofessional education for patient safety within an improvement methodology.

INTRODUCTION: Despite an explosion of interest in improving safety and reducing error in health care, one important aspect of patient safety that has received little attention is a systematic approach to education and training for the whole health care workforce. This article describes an evaluation of an innovative multiprofessional, team-based training program that embeds patient safety within quality improvement methods. METHODS: Kirkpatrick's "levels of evaluation" model was adopted to evaluate the program in health organizations across one city in the north of England. Questionnaires were used to assess reaction of participants to the program (Level 1). Improvements in patient safety knowledge and patient safety culture (Level 2) were assessed using a 12-item multiple-choice questionnaire and a culture questionnaire. Interviews and project-specific quantitative measurements were used to assess changes in professional practice and patient outcomes (Levels 3 and 4). RESULTS: All aspects of the program were positively received by participants. Few participants completed the MCQ at both time points, but those who did showed improvement in knowledge. There were some small but significant improvements in patient safety culture. Interviews revealed a number of additional benefits beyond the specific problems addressed. Most importantly, 8 of the 11 teams showed improvements in patient safety practices and/or outcomes. DISCUSSION: This program is an example of interprofessional education in practice and demonstrates that team-based learning using quality improvement methods is feasible and can be effective in improving patient safety, but requires time and space for participants. Alignment with continuing education arrangements could support mainstream adoption of this approach within organizations.