Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27660317›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Multimethod study of a large-scale programme to improve patient safety using a harm-free care approach.

Maxine Power, Liz Brewster, Gareth Parry, Ailsa Brotherton, Joel Minion, Piotr Ozieranski, Sarah McNicol, Abigail Harrison, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maxine PowerHAELO, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Liz BrewsterFaculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Gareth ParryInstitute for Healthcare Improvement, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Ailsa BrothertonHAELO, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Joel MinionData to Knowledge Group, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Piotr OzieranskiDepartment of Social and Policy Sciences, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Sarah McNicolEducation and Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, Crewe, UK.
Abigail HarrisonHAELO, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Mary Dixon-WoodsCambridge Centre for Health Services Research, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust 097899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to evaluate whether a large-scale two-phase quality improvement programme achieved its aims and to characterise the influences on achievement.

settingNational Health Service (NHS) in England.

participantsNHS staff.

interventionsThe programme sought to (1) develop a shared national, regional and locally aligned safety focus for 4 high-cost, high volume harms; (2) establish a new measurement system based on a composite measure of 'harm-free' care and (3) deliver improved outcomes. Phase I involved a quality improvement collaborative intended to involve 100 organisations; phase II used financial incentives for data collection. MEASURES: Multimethod evaluation of the programme. In phase I, analysis of regional plans and of rates of data submission and clinical outcomes reported to the programme. A concurrent process evaluation was conducted of phase I, but only data on submission rates and clinical outcomes were available for phase II.

resultsA context of extreme policy-related structural turbulence impacted strongly on phase I. Most regions' plans did not demonstrate full alignment with the national programme; most fell short of recruitment targets and attrition in attendance at the collaborative meetings occurred over time. Though collaborative participants saw the principles underlying the programme as attractive, useful and innovative, they often struggled to convert enthusiasm into change. Developing the measurement system was arduous, yet continued to be met by controversy. Data submission rates remained patchy throughout phase I but improved in reach and consistency in phase II in response to financial incentives. Some evidence of improvement in clinical outcomes over time could be detected but was hard to interpret owing to variability in the denominators.

conclusionsThese findings offer important lessons for large-scale improvement programmes, particularly when they seek to develop novel concepts and measures. External contexts may exert far-reaching influence. The challenges of developing measurement systems should not be underestimated.

Indexed as

improvement programmesmeasurementmixed-methodspatient safetyquality improvement collaboratives

Identifiers

PMID27660317
PMCPMC5051472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.