Jane O'Hara

Role of affective attitudes and anticipated affective reactions in predicting health behaviors.

OBJECTIVE Two measures of affect-affective attitude (AA) and anticipated affective reaction (AAR)-have frequently been used individually, but rarely simultaneously, in correlational studies predicting health behaviors. This research assessed their individual and combined impact in predicting intention and action for a range of health behaviors, controlling for theory of planned behavior (TPB) variables. METHOD Self-reported intentions and performance of health behaviors were the main outcome measures. DESIGN Study 1 is a meta-analysis of published studies (k = 16) measuring the relevant variables. In Study 2, adults (N = 426) completed questionnaires assessing TPB variables, past behavior, AA, AAR, and subsequent behavior for a range of health behaviors. RESULTS Across both studies, AA and AAR were only moderately intercorrelated, although both had significant correlations with both intentions and behavior. AA was a significant predictor of intentions and behavior after controlling for TPB variables (Studies 1 and 2) plus past behavior (Study 2). In Study 1, AAR was a significant predictor of behavior, but not intentions, when controlling for TPB variables. In Study 2, AAR was a significant predictor of intentions when controlling for both TPB variables plus past behavior (Study 2), but was not a significant predictor of behavior when controlling for either of these variables. Several relationships were moderated by health-behavior category. CONCLUSIONS Both AA and AAR are important predictors of health behaviors and can have independent effects on intentions and action. Studies manipulating both variables to test their independent and combined effects on behavior change are required.

Developing a reliable and valid patient measure of safety in hospitals (PMOS): a validation study

Introduction Patients represent an important and as yet untapped source of information about the factors that contribute to the safety of their care. The aim of the current study is to test the reliability and validity of the Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS), a brief patient-completed questionnaire that allows hospitals to proactively identify areas of safety concern and vulnerability, and to intervene before incidents occur. Methods 297 patients from 11 hospital wards completed the PMOS questionnaire during their stay; 25 completed a second 1 week later. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) safety culture survey was completed by 190 staff on 10 of these wards. Factor structure, internal reliability, test-retest reliability, discriminant validity and convergent validity were assessed. Results Factor analyses revealed 8 key domains of safety (eg, communication and team work, access to resources, staff roles and responsibilities) explaining 58% variance of the original questionnaire. Cronbachs α (range 0.66–0.89) and test-retest reliability (r=0.75) were good. The PMOS positive index significantly correlated with staff reported ‘perceptions of patient safety’ (r=0.79) and ‘patient safety grade’ (r=−0.81) outcomes from the AHRQ (demonstrating convergent validity). A multivariate analysis of variance (MAMOVA) revealed that three PMOS factors and one retained single item discriminated significantly across the 11 wards. Discussion The PMOS is the first patient questionnaire used to assess factors contributing to safety in hospital settings from a patient perspective. It has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity. Such information is useful to help hospitals/units proactively improve the safety of their care.

Can staff and patient perspectives on hospital safety predict harm-free care? An analysis of staff and patient survey data and routinely collected outcomes

Background Patients have the potential to provide feedback on the safety of their care. Recently, tools have been developed that ask patients to provide feedback on those factors that are known to contribute to safety, therefore providing information that can be used proactively to manage safety in hospitals. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the safety information provided by patients is different from that provided by staff and whether it is related to safety outcomes. Method Data were collected from 33 hospital wards across 3 acute hospital Trusts in the UK. Staff on these wards were asked to complete the four outcome measures of the Hospital Survey of Patient Safety Culture, while patients were asked to complete the Patient Measure of Safety and the friends and family test. We also collated publicly reported safety outcome data for ‘harm-free care’ on each ward. This patient safety thermometer measure is used in the UK NHS to record the percentage of patients on a single day of each month on every ward who have received harm-free care (ie, no pressure ulcers, falls, urinary tract infections and hospital acquired new venous thromboembolisms). These data were used to address questions about the relationship between measures and the extent to which patient and staff perceptions of safety predict safety outcomes. Results The friends and family test, a single item measure of patient experience was associated with patients’ perceptions of safety, but was not associated with safety outcomes. Staff responses to the patient safety culture survey were not significantly correlated with patient responses to the patient measure of safety, but both independently predicted safety outcomes. The regression models showed that staff perceptions (adjusted r2=0.39) and patient perceptions (adjusted r2=0.30) of safety independently predicted safety outcomes. When entered together both measures accounted for 49% of the variance in safety outcomes (adjusted r2=0.49), suggesting that there is overlap but some unique variance is also explained by these two measures. Based on responses to the Patient Measure of Safety it was also possible to identify differences between the acute Hospital Trusts. Discussion The findings suggest that although the views of patients and staff predict some overlapping variance in patient safety outcomes, both also offer a unique perspective on patient safety, contributing independently to the prediction of safety outcomes. These findings suggest that feedback from patients about the safety of the care that they receive can be used, in addition to data from staff to drive safety improvements in healthcare. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702.

Can patient involvement improve patient safety? A cluster randomised control trial of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment intervention. Design A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Clusters were 33 hospital wards within five hospitals in the UK. Participants All patients able to give informed consent were eligible to take part. Wards were allocated to the intervention or control condition. Intervention The ward-level intervention comprised two tools: (1) a questionnaire that asked patients about factors contributing to safety (patient measure of safety (PMOS)) and (2) a proforma for patients to report both safety concerns and positive experiences (patient incident reporting tool). Feedback was considered in multidisciplinary action planning meetings. Measurements Primary outcomes were routinely collected ward-level harm-free care (HFC) scores and patient-level feedback on safety (PMOS). Results Intervention uptake and retention of wards was 100% and patient participation was high (86%). We found no significant effect of the intervention on any outcomes at 6 or 12 months. However, for new harms (ie, those for which the wards were directly accountable) intervention wards did show greater, though non-significant, improvement compared with control wards. Analyses also indicated that improvements were largest for wards that showed the greatest compliance with the intervention. Limitations Adherence to the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. Patient safety outcomes may represent too blunt a measure. Conclusions Patients are willing to provide feedback about the safety of their care. However, we were unable to demonstrate any overall effect of this intervention on either measure of patient safety and therefore cannot recommend this intervention for wider uptake. Findings indicate promise for increasing HFC where wards implement ≥75% of the intervention components. Trial registration number ISRCTN07689702; pre-results.

The Patient Feedback Response Framework – Understanding why UK hospital staff find it difficult to make improvements based on patient feedback: A qualitative study

Patients are increasingly being asked for feedback about their healthcare experiences. However, healthcare staff often find it difficult to act on this feedback in order to make improvements to services. This paper draws upon notions of legitimacy and readiness to develop a conceptual framework (Patient Feedback Response Framework – PFRF) which outlines why staff may find it problematic to respond to patient feedback. A large qualitative study was conducted with 17 ward based teams between 2013 and 2014, across three hospital Trusts in the North of England. This was a process evaluation of a wider study where ward staff were encouraged to make action plans based on patient feedback. We focus on three methods here: i) examination of taped discussion between ward staff during action planning meetings ii) facilitators notes of these meetings iii) telephone interviews with staff focusing on whether action plans had been achieved six months later. Analysis employed an abductive approach. Through the development of the PFRF, we found that making changes based on patient feedback is a complex multi-tiered process and not something that ward staff can simply ‘do’. First, staff must exhibit normative legitimacy – the belief that listening to patients is a worthwhile exercise. Second, structural legitimacy has to be in place – ward teams need adequate autonomy, ownership and resource to enact change. Some ward teams are able to make improvements within their immediate control and environment. Third, for those staff who require interdepartmental co-operation or high level assistance to achieve change, organisational readiness must exist at the level of the hospital otherwise improvement will rarely be enacted. Case studies drawn from our empirical data demonstrate the above. It is only when appropriate levels of individual and organisational capacity to change exist, that patient feedback is likely to be acted upon to improve services.

How might health services capture patient-reported safety concerns in a hospital setting? An exploratory pilot study of three mechanisms

Introduction Emergent evidence suggests that patients can identify and report safety issues while in hospital. However, little is known about the best method for collecting information from patients about safety concerns. This study presents an exploratory pilot of three mechanisms for collecting data on safety concerns from patients during their hospital stay. Method Three mechanisms for capturing safety concerns were coproduced with healthcare professionals and patients, before being tested in an exploratory trial using cluster randomisation at the ward level. Nine wards participated, with each mechanism being tested over a 3-month study period. Patients were asked to feed back safety concerns via the mechanism on their ward (interviewing at their bedside, paper-based form or patient safety ‘hotline’). Safety concerns were subjected to a two-stage review process to identify those that would meet the definition of a patient safety incident. Differences between mechanisms on a range of outcomes were analysed using inferential statistics. Safety concerns were thematically analysed to develop reporting categories. Results 178 patients were recruited. Patients in the face-to-face interviewing condition provided significantly more safety concerns per patient (1.91) compared with the paper-based form (0.92) and the patient safety hotline (0.43). They were also significantly more likely to report one or more concerns, with 64% reporting via the face-to-face mechanism, compared with 41% via the paper-based form and 19% via the patient safety hotline. No mechanism differed significantly in the number of classified patient safety incidents or physician-rated preventability and severity. Discussion Interviewing at the patients bedside is likely to be the most effective means of gathering safety concerns from inpatients, potentially providing an opportunity for health services to gather patient feedback about safety from their perspective.

At a crossroads? Key challenges and future opportunities for patient involvement in patient safety

In 2002, Charles Vincent and Angela Coulter published what would become a seminal paper in the field of patient safety.1 Their argument was simple and compelling—that patient safety could be improved through the greater involvement of patients and their families. Over the past decade, the healthcare landscape has evolved, with patients and families now firmly placed at the centre of care design and delivery in both policy, and increasingly practice. However, as highlighted in two papers2 ,3 published in this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety , there remain significant challenges in the meaningful integration of the patient perspective in improving the safety of care. Why does involving patients in safety improvement remain so hard? In this editorial, we propose a number of reasons, before considering some potential future opportunities for improving the involvement of patients and their families. Ocloo and Matthews outline a range of reasons why achieving genuine patient involvement presents challenges, before concluding that “current involvement practices at a national and local level often involve a narrow group of individuals…”.2 While their comments mainly relate to the lack of diversity of patient involvement in healthcare improvement, the same can also be said about the representativeness of patients within the very research that seeks to provide evidence to underpin wider involvement. Some of the most vulnerable patients are often excluded from research exploring the involvement of patients in patient safety—for example, patients unable to speak the host country language or frail elderly patients with delirium or dementia. These research restrictions make ethical sense insofar as patients cannot provide informed consent, but they skew the existing empirical literature by excluding the very patients that are most at risk for experiencing adverse events, such as the elderly4 and non-native language speakers.5 What we know …

Is there a role for patients and their relatives in escalating clinical deterioration in hospital? A systematic review.

Measures exist to improve early recognition of, and response to, deteriorating patients in hospital. However, deteriorating patients continue to go unrecognized. To address this, interventions have been developed that invite patients and relatives to escalate patient deterioration to a rapid response team (RRT).

Burnout mediates the association between depression and patient safety perceptions: a cross‐sectional study in hospital nurses

AIMS The aim of this study was to investigate the relationships between depressive symptoms, burnout and perceptions of patient safety. A mediation model was proposed whereby the association between symptoms of depression and patient safety perceptions was mediated by burnout. BACKGROUND There is growing interest in the relationships between depressive symptoms and burnout in healthcare staff and the safety of patient care. Depressive symptoms are higher in healthcare staff than the general population and overlap conceptually with burnout. However, minimal research has investigated these variables in nurses. Given the conceptual overlap between depressive symptoms and burnout, there is also a need for an explanatory model outlining the relative contributions of these factors to patient safety. DESIGN A cross-sectional questionnaire was distributed at three acute NHS Trusts. METHOD Three-hundred and twenty-three hospital nursing staff completed measures of depressive symptoms, burnout and patient safety perceptions (including measures at the level of the individual and the work area/unit) between December 2015 - February 2016. RESULTS When tested in separate analyses, depressive symptoms and burnout facets were each associated with both patient safety measures. Furthermore, the proposed mediation model was supported, with associations between depressive symptoms and patient safety perceptions fully mediated by burnout. CONCLUSION These results suggest that symptoms of depression and burnout in hospital nurses may have implications for patient safety. However, interventions to improve patient safety may be best targeted at improving burnout in particular, with burnout interventions known to be most effective when focused at both the individual and the organisational level.

A qualitative formative evaluation of a patient-centred patient safety intervention delivered in collaboration with hospital volunteers

Evidence suggests that patients can meaningfully feed back to healthcare providers about the safety of their care. The PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention provides a way to systematically collect feedback from patients to support service improvement. The intervention is being implemented in acute care settings with patient feedback collected by hospital volunteers for the first time.