Culture, compassion and clinical neglect: probity in the NHS after Mid Staffordshire

Speaking of the public response to the deaths of children at the Bristol Royal Infirmary before 2001, the BMJ commented that the NHS would be 'all changed, changed utterly'. Today, two inquiries into the Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust suggest nothing changed at all. Many patients died as a result of their care and the stories of indifference and neglect there are harrowing. Yet Bristol and Mid Staffordshire are not isolated reports. In 2011, the Health Services Ombudsman reported on the care of elderly and frail patients in the NHS and found a failure to recognise their humanity and individuality and to respond to them with sensitivity, compassion and professionalism. Likewise, the Care Quality Commission and Healthcare Commission received complaints from patients and relatives about the quality of nursing care. These included patients not being fed, patients left in soiled bedding, poor hygiene practices, and general disregard for privacy and dignity. Why is there such tolerance of poor clinical standards? We need a better understanding of the circumstances that can lead to these outcomes and how best to respond to them. We discuss the findings of these and other reports and consider whether attention should be devoted to managing individual behaviour, or focus on the systemic influences which predispose hospital staff to behave in this way. Lastly, we consider whether we should look further afield to cognitive psychology to better understand how clinicians and managers make decisions?

The contribution of building research to the independence and quality of life of older people

Many nations are experiencing rapid rises in the life expectancy of their citizens. The implications of this major demographic shift are considerable offering opportunities as well as challenges to reconsider how people should spend their later years. A key task is enhancing the quality of life of older people through enabling them to continue to live independently even though illness, accident or frailty may have severely reduced their physical and sensory abilities and, possibly, mental health. Yet the needs of older people and disabled people have been largely ignored in the design of everyday consumer products, the home, transport systems and the built environment in general. Whilst the need for designers, engineers and technologists to provide products, environments and systems which are inclusive of all members of society is widely accepted, there is little understanding of how this can be achieved. In 1998 the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council established its EQUAL Initiative. This has encouraged design, engineering and technology researchers in universities to join with their colleagues from the social, medical and health sciences to investigate a wide range of issues experienced by older and disabled people and to propose solutions. Their research, which directly involves older and disabled people and, for example, social housing providers, social services departments, charities, engineering and architectural consultants, and transport firms, has been extremely successful. In a very short time it has influenced government policy on housing, long-term care, and building standards, and findings have been taken up by architects, designers, health-care professionals and bodies which represent older and disabled people.

Technology acceptance and care self-management: consideration in context of chronic care management

With an aging global population, the number of people living with a chronic illness is expected to increase significantly by 2050. If left unmanaged, chronic care leads to serious health complications, resulting in poor patient quality of life and a costly time bomb for care providers. If effectively managed, patients with chronic care tend to live a richer and more healthy life, resulting in a less costly total care solution. This chapter considers literature from the areas of technology acceptance and care self-management, which aims to alleviate symptoms and/or reason for non-acceptance of care, and thus minimise the risk of long-term complications, which in turn reduces the chance of spiralling health expenditure. By bringing together these areas, the chapter highlights areas where self-management is failing so that changes can be made in care in advance of health deterioration.

Training on the use of a bespoke continuing professional development framework improves the quality of CPD records

BACKGROUND: Using continuing professional development (CPD) as part of the revalidation of pharmacy professionals has been proposed in the UK but not implemented. We developed a CPD Outcomes Framework (‘the framework’) for scoring CPD records, where the score range was -100 to +150 based on demonstrable relevance and impact of the CPD on practice. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study aimed to test the outcome of training people to use the framework, through distance-learning material (active intervention), by comparing CPD scores before and after training. SETTING: Pharmacy professionals were recruited in the UK in Reading, Banbury, Southampton, Kingston-upon-Thames and Guildford in 2009. METHOD: We conducted a randomised, double-blinded, parallel-group, before and after study. The control group simply received information on new CPD requirements through the post; the active intervention group also received the framework and associated training. Altogether 48 participants (25 control, 23 active) completed the study. All participants submitted CPD records to the research team before and after receiving the posted resources. The records (n=226) were scored blindly by the researchers using the framework. A subgroup of CPD records (n=96) submitted first (before-stage) and rewritten (after-stage) were analysed separately. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Scores for CPD records received before and after distributing group-dependent material through the post. RESULTS: Using a linear-regression model both analyses found an increase in CPD scores in favour of the active intervention group. For the complete set of records, the effect was a mean difference of 9.9 (95% CI = 0.4 to 19.3), p-value = 0.04. For the subgroup of rewritten records, the effect was a mean difference of 17.3 (95% CI = 5.6 to 28.9), p-value = 0.0048. CONCLUSION: The intervention improved participants’ CPD behaviour. Training pharmacy professionals to use the framework resulted in better CPD activities and CPD records, potentially helpful for revalidation of pharmacy professionals. IMPACT: • Using a bespoke Continuing Professional Development outcomes framework improves the value of pharmacy professionals’ CPD activities and CPD records, with the potential to improve patient care. • The CPD outcomes framework could be helpful to pharmacy professionals internationally who want to improve the quality of their CPD activities and CPD records. • Regulators and officials across Europe and beyond can assess the suitability of the CPD outcomes framework for use in pharmacy CPD and revalidation in their own setting.