Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35732062›Full record

ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2023

Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service.

Graham Martin, Sarah Chew, Imelda McCarthy, Jeremy Dawson, Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Establishing a Just Culture: Implications for the Veterans Health Administration Journey to High Reliability.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

5 authors.

Graham MartinThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 2152University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1979-7577
Sarah ChewSocial Science Applied to Healthcare Improvement Research (SAPPHIRE) Group, Department of Health Sciences, 4488University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Imelda McCarthyCentre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship (CREME), Aston University, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4715-9831
Jeremy DawsonManagement School, 7315University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Mary Dixon-WoodsThe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, 2152University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5915-0041

Funding

Department of Health NF-SI-0617-10026Department of Health PR-R15-0116-23001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice.

methodsWe undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services.

resultsOur findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families.

conclusionsVariation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareState MedicineEnglandHumansOrganizational Case StudiesPolicycultureopennessquality and safety

Identifiers

PMID35732062
PMCPMC9850378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.