Observational studyBMC health services research2020
Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding healthcare professionals' responses to patient complaints in secondary and tertiary care in the UK: A systematic review and behavioural analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.Health research policy and systems · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of primary to secondary care data sharing on care quality in NHS England hospitals.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- A decade after Francis: is the NHS safer and more open?BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Article
- Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service.Journal of health services research & policy · 2023Article
- Correction to: Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys.BMC health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImproving openness-including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes-is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which examined failings of openness at one English hospital. We examine whether staff and patients' views on openness, and experiences of giving voice to concerns, have changed since the report's publication for better or worse.
methodsOrganisational-level data was collated for all trusts from the NHS National Staff Survey (2007-2017), NHS Acute Inpatient Survey (2004-2016) and NHS Community Mental Health Service User Survey (2007-2017). Survey items related to openness were identified and longitudinal statistical analysis conducted (piecewise growth curve and interrupted latent growth curve analysis) to determine whether there was evidence of a shift in the rate or direction of change following publication of the Francis report.
resultsFor some variables there was a discernible change in trajectory after the publication of the Francis report. Staff survey variables continued to rise after 2013, with a statistically significant increase in rate for "fairness and effectiveness of incident reporting procedures" (from + 0.02 to + 0.06 per year; p < .001). For the patient surveys, the picture was more mixed: patient views about information provided by accident and emergency staff rose from a 0.3% increase per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01), and inpatients being involved in decision making increased from a 0.4% rise per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01); however, there were not rises in the other questions. Mental health patients reported a decrease after 2013 in being listened to (decreasing at a rate of 1.9% per year, p < .001).
conclusionsData suggest that the Francis inquiry may have had a positive impact on staff and acute inpatients' perceptions and experiences of openness in the NHS. However such improvements have not transpired in mental health. How best to create an environment in which patients can discuss their care and raise concerns openly in mental health settings may require further consideration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.