LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
O’Hara, Jane K.; Lawton, Rebecca J.; Armitage, Gerry; Sheard, Laura; Marsh, Claire; Cocks, Kim; McEachan, Rosie R. C.; Reynolds, Caroline; Watt, Ian; Wright, John (2016)
Publisher: Springer Nature
Journal: BMC Health Services Research
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Research Article, Health Policy
Background There is growing interest in the role of patients in improving patient safety. One such role is providing feedback on the safety of their care. Here we describe the development and feasibility testing of an intervention that collects patient feedback on patient safety, brings together staff to consider this feedback and to plan improvement strategies. We address two research questions: i) to explore the feasibility of the process of systematically collecting feedback from patients about the safety of care as part of the PRASE intervention; and, ii) to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the PRASE intervention for staff, and to understand more about how staff use the patient feedback for service improvement. Method We conducted a feasibility study using a wait-list controlled design across six wards within an acute teaching hospital. Intervention wards were asked to participate in two cycles of the PRASE (Patient Reporting & Action for a Safe Environment) intervention across a six-month period. Participants were patients on participating wards. To explore the acceptability of the intervention for staff, observations of action planning meetings, interviews with a lead person for the intervention on each ward and recorded researcher reflections were analysed thematically and synthesised. Results Recruitment of patients using computer tablets at their bedside was straightforward, with the majority of patients willing and able to provide feedback. Randomisation of the intervention was acceptable to staff, with no evidence of differential response rates between intervention and control groups. In general, ward staff were positive about the use of patient feedback for service improvement and were able to use the feedback as a basis for action planning, although engagement with the process was variable. Gathering a multidisciplinary team together for action planning was found to be challenging, and implementing action plans was sometimes hindered by the need to co-ordinate action across multiple services. Discussion The PRASE intervention was found to be acceptable to staff and patients. However, before proceeding to a full cluster randomised controlled trial, the intervention requires adaptation to account for the difficulties in implementing action plans within three months, the need for a facilitator to support the action planning meetings, and the provision of training and senior management support for participating ward teams. Conclusions The PRASE intervention represents a promising method for the systematic collection of patient feedback about the safety of hospital care. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1919-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Francis QC. R. Report of the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry: Analysis of evidence and lessons learned (part 1). 2013.
    • 2. National Advisory Group on the Safety of Patients in England. A Promise to Learn - A Commitment to Act. In: Improving the Safety of Patients in England. London: Department of Health; 2013.
    • 3. Keogh B. (Professor, Sir). Review into the quality of care and treatment provided by 14 hospital trusts in England: overview report. England: NHS; 2013.
    • 4. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/publications/safety-and-qualityimprovement-guide-standard-2-partneringwith-consumers-october-2012/ [Accessed 15 Nov 2016].
    • 5. http://www.ipfcc.org/advance/topics/better-together.html. [Accessed 15 Nov 2016].
    • 6. Giles SJ, Lawton RJ, Din I, McEachan RR. Developing a patient measure of safety (PMOS). BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(7):554-62.
    • 7. McEachan RR, Lawton RJ, O'Hara JK, Armitage G, Giles S, Parveen S, et al. Developing a reliable and valid patient measure of safety in hospitals (PMOS): a validation study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(7):565-73.
    • 8. O'Hara JK, Isden R. Identifying risks and monitoring safety: the role of patients and citizens. London: The Health Foundation; 2013.
    • 9. Vincent CA, Coulter A. Patient safety: what about the patient? Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(1):76-80.
    • 10. Ward JK, Armitage G. Can patients report patient safety incidents in a hospital setting? A systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(8):685-99.
    • 11. King A, Daniels J, Lim J, Cochrane DD, Taylor A, Ansermino JM. Time to listen: a review of methods to solicit patient reports of adverse events. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(2):148-57.
    • 12. Vincent C, Burnett S, Carthey J. Safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a framework to guide clinical teams and healthcare organisations in maintaining safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(8):670-7.
    • 13. Reason J. Human Error. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1990. p. 11.
    • 14. O'Hara JK, Armitage G, Reynolds C, Coulson C, Thorp L, Din I, Watt I, Wright J. How might health services capture patient-reported safety concerns in a hospital setting? An exploratory pilot study of three mechanisms. BMJ Qual Saf. Published Online First: 4th February 2016. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015- 004260.
    • 15. Hinrichs J. Feedback, action planning and follow-through. In: Kraut A, editor. Organizational surveys: tools for assessment and change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 1996. p. 255-79.
    • 16. Nieva VF, Sorra J. Safety culture assessment: a tool for improving patient safety in healthcare organisations. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(Suppl II):ii1-ii23.
    • 17. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:1665.
    • 18. Sheard L, O'Hara J, Armitage G, Wright J, Cocks K, McEachan R, Watt I, Lawton R. Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:420. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-420.
    • 19. Ward JK, McEachan RRC, Lawton R, Armitage G, Watt I, Wright J. Patient involvement in patient safety: Protocol for developing an intervention using patient reports of organisational safety and patient incident reporting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:130 (27 May 2011).
    • 20. Davis RE, Sevdalis N, Neale G, Massey R, Vincent CA. Hospital patients' reports of medical errors and undesirable events in their health care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2013;19(5):875-81.
    • 21. Guest G. Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd; 2012.
    • 22. Office for National Statistics. Census for Bradford (Local Authority) 2011 Available from: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/ LeadTableView.doa=7&b=6275029&c=BD1+1HY&d=13&e=61&g= 6488012&i=1x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=0&s=1425903536815&enc= 1&dsFamilyId=2575&nsjs=true&nsck=false&nssvg=false&nswid=1106. [Accessed 15 Nov 2016].
    • 23. Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(3):228-38.
  • Inferred research data

    The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    Title Trust
    56
    56%
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article