Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42686379›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2026

1:1 observation and support: a quality improvement approach to reducing cost and improving therapeutic input.

David Thomas, Marie Little, Jessica Pawley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

David ThomasTrust Management, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.
Marie LittleImprovement Team, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK marie.little@somersetft.nhs.uk.
Jessica PawleyImprovement Team, Somerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-3982-8931

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our quality improvement (QI) project aimed to reduce reliance on external temporary staff used for 1:1 observation and support within a recently merged acute, community and mental health National Health Service (NHS) Trust. Temporary staffing costs reached £2.7 million in the previous financial year. Between February 2022 and June 2024, we aimed to establish a more efficient and consistent approach, particularly within acute physical healthcare settings. The project focused on four main patient cohorts and the goal was to reduce temporary staffing costs by 25%. A multidisciplinary team, guided by the 7 Steps to QI methodology, developed and tested two key tools to standardise decision-making and reduce the need for temporary staff. The project was implemented in nine pilot areas across the Trust, leading to a reduction in staffing costs by £600,000 in the first year, with a further £1.2 million in the second year. Additionally, patient falls with harm decreased by 8%. Challenges arose due to communication barriers and the need for cultural change. By empowering local teams to make more informed decisions, the project demonstrated the value of standardised tools and staff training in enhancing both patient care and organisational sustainability.

Indexed as

ObservationQuality ImprovementCost ControlHumansState MedicineUnited KingdomCommunicationCost-effectivenessMental healthPatient safetyQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID42686379
PMCPMC13548249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.