Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


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.


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


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Benning, A.; Ghaleb, M.; Suokas, A.; Dixon-Woods, M.; Dawson, J.; Barber, N.; Franklin, B. D.; Girling, A.; Hemming, K.; Carmalt, M.; Rudge, G.; Naicker, T.; Nwulu, U.; Choudhury, S.; Lilford, R. (2011)
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Journal: The BMJ
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Medicines Regulation, Adverse events; health-care; quality improvement; end-points; framework; epistemology; design; management; performance; excellence, Medical Error/ Patient Safety, RT, RA0421, Patients, Epidemiologic Studies, Pneumonia (Respiratory Medicine), Research
Objectives To conduct an independent evaluation of the first phase of the Health Foundation’s Safer Patients Initiative (SPI), and to identify the net additional effect of SPI and any differences in changes in participating and non-participating NHS hospitals.\ud \ud Design Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design.\ud \ud Setting NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom.\ud \ud Participants Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals.\ud \ud Intervention The SPI1 was a compound (multi-component) organisational intervention delivered over 18 months that focused on improving the reliability of specific frontline care processes in designated clinical specialties and promoting organisational and cultural change.\ud \ud Results Senior staff members were knowledgeable and enthusiastic about SPI1. There was a small (0.08 points on a 5 point scale) but significant (P<0.01) effect in favour of the SPI1 hospitals in one of 11 dimensions of the staff questionnaire (organisational climate). Qualitative evidence showed only modest penetration of SPI1 at medical ward level. Although SPI1 was designed to engage staff from the bottom up, it did not usually feel like this to those working on the wards, and questions about legitimacy of some aspects of SPI1 were raised. Of the five components to identify patients at risk of deterioration—monitoring of vital signs (14 items); routine tests (three items); evidence based standards specific to certain diseases (three items); prescribing errors (multiple items from the British National Formulary); and medical history taking (11 items)—there was little net difference between control and SPI1 hospitals, except in relation to quality of monitoring of acute medical patients, which improved on average over time across all hospitals. Recording of respiratory rate increased to a greater degree in SPI1 than in control hospitals; in the second six hours after admission recording increased from 40% (93) to 69% (165) in control hospitals and from 37% (141) to 78% (296) in SPI1 hospitals (odds ratio for “difference in difference” 2.1, 99% confidence interval 1.0 to 4.3; P=0.008). Use of a formal scoring system for patients with pneumonia also increased over time (from 2% (102) to 23% (111) in control hospitals and from 2% (170) to 9% (189) in SPI1 hospitals), which favoured controls and was not significant (0.3, 0.02 to 3.4; P=0.173). There were no improvements in the proportion of prescription errors and no effects that could be attributed to SPI1 in non-targeted generic areas (such as enhanced safety culture). On some measures, the lack of effect could be because compliance was already high at baseline (such as use of steroids in over 85% of cases where indicated), but even when there was more room for improvement (such as in quality of medical history taking), there was no significant additional net effect of SPI1. There were no changes over time or between control and SPI1 hospitals in errors or rates of adverse events in patients in medical wards. Mortality increased from 11% (27) to 16% (39) among controls and decreased from 17% (63) to 13% (49) among SPI1 hospitals, but the risk adjusted difference was not significant (0.5, 0.2 to 1.4; P=0.085). Poor care was a contributing factor in four of the 178 deaths identified by review of case notes. The survey of patients showed no significant differences apart from an increase in perception of cleanliness in favour of SPI1 hospitals.\ud \ud Conclusions The introduction of SPI1 was associated with improvements in one of the types of clinical process studied (monitoring of vital signs) and one measure of staff perceptions of organisational climate. There was no additional effect of SPI1 on other targeted issues nor on other measures of generic organisational strengthening.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • a sa co fo rg d o no re is d v n a r a l le a ro g b f in fe tx s il e o - t t rk n ” o co s w e ye f “ o m d ty so re li w au ive e q g sn ( a s to o re y . hw cso rveu n itco tsn ive ts e e f rs s nd se if s 4 r 2 o in s rr ilirtssaahw2223 trtceeaudm lllfryeahum itsoonuhm iirvsenoup iirvsenoup itt/seanpm tsonh12m ‡itrvsyeeuunoq lltrtrcseeauuppd itrvsseonouh12m iillrtrskgeonnuw iitttsseeeannodp iirrvssseeeanpm ljirrtrykeeaonud tsonh2m lrrtrtssskeeeaod tsonh2m ililfrycvcseeaoon iiitrvvsseeanoup 52iltttveeeanono S W p W W n W 1 W 1 Ph lre In
    • 1 Department of Health Expert Group. An organisation with a memory. Stationery Office, 2000.
    • 2 Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To err is human: building a safer health system. National Academies Press, 2000.
    • 3 Leape LL, Berwick DM. Five years after to err is human: what have we learned? JAMA 2005;293:2384-90.
    • 4 Hutter B. Regulation and risk: occupational health and safety on the railways. Oxford University Press, 2001.
    • 5 Macrae C. Learning from patient safety incidents: creating participative risk regulation in healthcare. Health Risk Soc 2008;10:53-67.
    • 6 Benning A, Ghaleb M, Suokas A, Dixon-Woods M, Dawson JF, Barber N, et al. Mixed-method evaluation of a large-scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals. 2010. www.haps.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/psrp/ EvalSPI.shtml.
    • 7 Deming WE. Out of the crisis. MIT Press, 2000.
    • 8 Dixon-Woods M, Tarrant C, Willars J, Suokas A. How will it work? A qualitative study of strategic stakeholders' accounts of a patient safety initiative. Qual Saf Health Care 2010;19:74-8.
    • 9 Varkey P, Reller MK, Resar RK. Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clin Proc 2007;82:735-9.
    • 10 Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 17th Annual National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care. 2005 December 11-14; Orlando, USA. www.ihi.org/Ihi/Files/Forum/2005/Handouts/ IHI_033_ATT_GUIDE_fnl_2.pdf.
    • 11 Berwick DM, Calkins DR, McCannon CJ, Hackbarth AD. The 100 000 lives campaign: setting a goal and a deadline for improving health care quality. JAMA 2006;295:324-7.
    • 12 Bisognano C, McCannon J, Botwinick L. A campaign for 100,000 lives. Trustee 2005;58:12-4.
    • 13 Ogrinc G, Mooney SE, Estrada C, Foster T, Goldmann D, Hall LW, et al. The SQUIRE (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence) guidelines for quality improvement reporting: explanation and elaboration. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17(suppl 1):i13-32.
    • 14 Benning A, Dixon-Woods M, Nwulu U, Ghaleb M, Dawson J, Barber N, et al. Multiple component patient safety intervention in English hospitals: controlled evaluation of second phase. BMJ 2011;doi:10.1136/bmj.d199.
    • 15 Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, Franklin BD, et al. An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 4. One size does not fit all. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:178-81.
    • 16 Brown C, Lilford R. Evaluating service delivery interventions to enhance patient safety. BMJ 2008;337:a2764.
    • 17 Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, Franklin BD, et al. An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 1. Conceptualising and developing interventions. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:158-62.
    • 18 Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, Franklin BD, et al. An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 2. Study design. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:163-9.
    • 19 Brown C, Hofer T, Johal A, Thomson R, Nicholl J, Franklin BD, et al. An epistemology of patient safety research: a framework for study design and interpretation. Part 3. End points and measurement. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:170-7.
    • 20 Lilford RJ, Chilton PJ, Hemming K, Girling AJ, Taylor CA, Barach P. Evaluating policy and service interventions: framework to guide selection and interpretation of study end points. BMJ 2010;341:c4413.
    • 21 Glaser B, Thomson R. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company, 1967.
    • 22 Guzzo RA, Jette D, Katzell RA. The effects of psychologically based intervention programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis. Pers Psychol 1985;38:275-92.
    • 23 West MA, Guthrie JP, Dawson JF, Borrill CS, Carter MR. Reducing patient mortality in hospitals: the role of human resource management. J Organ Behav 2006;27:983-1002.
    • 24 Borrill CS, West MA, Shapiro D, Rees A. Team working and effectiveness in health. Brit J Healthc Manag 2000;6:364-71.
    • 25 Michie S, West M. Managing people and performance: an evidencebased framework applied to health service organisations. Int J Manag Rev 2004;5-6:91-111.
    • 26 Healthcare Commission. Making sense of your staff survey data. 2006. http://www.carequalitycommission.org.uk/_db/ _documents/ Making_sense_of_your_Staff_Survey_Data_200703214701.pdf.
    • 27 Smith GB, Prytherch DR, Schmidt P, Featherstone PI, Knight D, Clements G, et al. Hospital-wide physiological surveillance-a new approach to the early identification and management of the sick patient. Resuscitation 2006;71:19-28.
    • 28 Hillman KM, Bristow PJ, Chey T, Daffurn K, Jacques T, Norman SL, et al. Antecedents to hospital deaths. Intern Med J 2001;31:343-8.
    • 29 McQuillan P, Pilkington S, Allan A, Taylor B, Short A, Morgan G, et al. Confidential inquiry into quality of care before admission to intensive care. BMJ 1998;316:1853-8.
    • 30 Lilford R, Edwards A, Girling A, Hofer T, Di Tanna GL, Petty J, et al. Interrater reliability of case-note audit: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2007;12:173-80.
    • 31 BTS Guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults. Thorax 2001;56:iv1-64.
    • 32 BTS Guidelines for the management of community acquired pneumonia in adults, 2004 update. 2004. www.brit-thoracic.org.uk/ Portals/0/Clinical%20Information/Pneumonia/Guidelines/ MACAPrevisedApr04.pdf.
    • 33 Barber N, Franklin BD, Cornford T, Klecun E, Savage I. Safer, faster, better? Evaluating electronic prescribing. Report to the Patient Safety Research Programme. (Policy Research Programme of the Department of Health). 2006. www.haps.bham.ac.uk/publichealth/ psrp/documents/PS019_Final_Report_Barber.pdf.
    • 34 Cousins D, Hatoum H. The development of a computerised quality assurance system for clinical pharmacy. Int J Pharmact Pract 1991;1:86-9.
    • 35 Landis J, Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74.
    • 36 Reason JT. Human error. Cambridge University Press, 1990.
    • 37 Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991;324:377-84.
    • 38 Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust 1995;163:458-71.
    • 39 Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard medical practice study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370-6.
    • 40 Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001;322:517-9.
    • 41 Woloshynowych M, Neale G, Vincent C. Case record review of adverse events: a new approach. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:411-5.
    • 42 Lilford R, Mohammed MA, Spiegelhalter D, Thomson R. Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet 2004;363:1147-54.
    • 43 Hackbarth A, McCannon C, Martin L, Lloyd R, Calkins D. The hard count: calculating lives saved in the 100,000 lives campaign. 2006. www.ihi.org/NR/rdonlyres/AA1B05AD-5DFF-45D6-8A2F05C69C9C2860/0/ihiarticle.pdf.
    • 44 Warrack BJ, Sinha MN. Integrating safety and quality: building to achieve excellence in the workplace. Total Qual Manag 1999;10:779-85.
    • 45 Murray DM, Blitstein JL. Methods to reduce the impact of intraclass correlation in group-randomized trials. Eval Rev 2003;27:79-103.
    • 46 Cook R, Woods D. Operating at the sharp end: the complexity of human error. In: Bogner M, ed. Human error in medicine. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1994:255-310.
    • 47 Dixon-Woods M, Suokas A, Pitchforth E, Tarrant C. An ethnographic study of classifying and accounting for risk at the sharp end of medical wards. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:362-9.
    • 48 Murphy E, Dingwall R, Greatbatch D, Parker S, Watson P. Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:iii-274.
    • 49 Landon BE, Hicks LS, O'Malley AJ, Lieu TA, Keegan T, McNeil BJ, et al. Improving the management of chronic disease at community health centers. N Engl J Med 2007;356:921-34.
    • 50 Landon BE, Wilson IB, McInnes K, Landrum MB, Hirschhorn L, Marsden PV, et al. Effects of a quality improvement collaborative on the outcome of care of patients with HIV infection: the EQHIV study. Ann Intern Med 2004;140:887-96.
    • 51 Benn J, Burnett S, Parand A, Pinto A, Iskander A, Vincent C. Studying large-scale programmes to improve patient safety in whole care systems: challenges for research. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69:1767-76.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article