Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service:overview of lessons from a large multimethod study

Background - Problems of quality and safety persist in health systems worldwide. We conducted a large research programme to examine culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service (NHS). Methods - Mixed-methods study involving collection and triangulation of data from multiple sources, including interviews, surveys, ethnographic case studies, board minutes and publicly available datasets. We narratively synthesised data across the studies to produce a holistic picture and in this paper present a highlevel summary. Results - We found an almost universal desire to provide the best quality of care. We identified many 'bright spots' of excellent caring and practice and high-quality innovation across the NHS, but also considerable inconsistency. Consistent achievement of high-quality care was challenged by unclear goals, overlapping priorities that distracted attention, and compliance-oriented bureaucratised management. The institutional and regulatory environment was populated by multiple external bodies serving different but overlapping functions. Some organisations found it difficult to obtain valid insights into the quality of the care they provided. Poor organisational and information systems sometimes left staff struggling to deliver care effectively and disempowered them from initiating improvement. Good staff support and management were also highly variable, though they were fundamental to culture and were directly related to patient experience, safety and quality of care. Conclusions - Our results highlight the importance of clear, challenging goals for high-quality care. Organisations need to put the patient at the centre of all they do, get smart intelligence, focus on improving organisational systems, and nurture caring cultures by ensuring that staff feel valued, respected, engaged and supported.

Large scale organisational intervention to improve patient safety in four UK hospitals:mixed method evaluation

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. Design: Mixed method evaluation involving five substudies, before and after design. Setting: NHS hospitals in United Kingdom. Participants: Four hospitals (one in each country in the UK) participating in the first phase of the SPI (SPI1); 18 control hospitals. Intervention: The SPI1 was a compound (multicomponent) 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. 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 from17%(63) to13%(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. 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.

An actor-network theory study of public sector inter-organisational collaboration

EMBARGOED The literature on inter-organisational collaboration, although wide-ranging, offers little guidance on collaboration as process. It focuses in the main on human attributes like leadership, trust and agency, but gives little consideration to the role of objects in the development of inter-organisational collaborations. A central aim of this thesis is to understand the interaction of objects and humans in the development of a particular health and social care partnership in the North East of England. This socio-material perspective was achieved through actor-network theory (ANT) as a methodology, in which the researcher is equally sensitised to the role of human and non-human entities in the development of a network. The case study is that of the North East Lincolnshire Care Trust Plus (CTP). This was a unique health and social care collaboration arrangement between North East Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust, setup to address heath inequalities in the region. The CTP was conceived and developed at a local level by the respective organisation’s decision makers in the face of considerable opposition from regional policy makers and national regulators. However, despite this opposition, the directors eventually achieved their goal and the CTP became operational on 1st September 2007. This study seeks to understand how the CTP was conceived and developed, in the face of this opposition. The thesis makes a number of original contributions. Firstly, it adds to the current body of literature on collaboration by identifying how objects can help problematize issues and cement inter-organisational collaborations. Secondly it provides a novel account describing how two public sector organisations created a unique collaboration, despite pressing resistance from the regulatory authorities; and thirdly it extends Callon’s (1996) notion of problematization to examine how, what is rather vaguely described as ‘context’ in the literature, becomes enmeshed in decisions to collaborate. UNTIL 03/02/2016 THIS THESIS IS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

Leadership and organisational outcomes in healthcare

This research examined to what extent and how leadership is related to organisational outcomes in healthcare. Based on the Job Demands-Resource model, a set of hypotheses was developed, which predicted that the effect of leadership on healthcare outcomes would be mediated by job design, employee engagement, work pressure, opportunity for involvement, and work-life balance. The research focused on the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and examined the relationships between senior leadership, first line supervisory leadership and outcomes. Three years of data (2008 – 2010) were gathered from four data sources: the NHS National Staff Survey, the NHS Inpatient Survey, the NHS Electronic Record, and the NHS Information Centre. The data were drawn from 390 healthcare organisations and over 285,000 staff annually for each of the three years. Parallel mediation regressions modelled both cross sectional and longitudinal designs. The findings revealed strong relationships between senior leadership and supervisor support respectively and job design, engagement, opportunity for involvement, and work-life balance, while senior leadership was also associated with work pressure. Except for job design, there were significant relationships between the mediating variables and the outcomes of patient satisfaction, employee job satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover. Relative importance analysis showed that senior leadership accounted for significantly more variance in relationships with outcomes than supervisor support in the majority of models tested. Results are discussed in relation to theoretical and practical contributions. They suggest that leadership plays a significant role in organisational outcomes in healthcare and that previous research may have underestimated how influential senior leaders may be in relation to these outcomes. Moreover, the research suggests that leaders in healthcare may influence outcomes by the way they manage the work pressure, engagement, opportunity for involvement and work-life balance of those they lead.