• Fidelity and the impact of patient safety huddles on teamwork and safety culture: an evaluation of the Huddle Up for Safer Healthcare (HUSH) project.

      Lamming, Laura; Montague, Jane; Crosswaite, Kate; Faisal, Muhammad; McDonach, E.; Mohammed, A. Mohammed; Cracknell, A.; Lovatt, A.; Slater, B. (2021-10-01)
      The Patient Safety Huddle (PSH) is a brief multidisciplinary daily meeting held to discuss threats to patient safety and actions to mitigate risk. Despite growing interest and application of huddles as a mechanism for improving safety, evidence of their impact remains limited. There is also variation in how huddles are conceived and implemented with insufficient focus on their fidelity (the extent to which delivered as planned) and potential ways in which they might influence outcomes. The Huddle Up for Safer Healthcare (HUSH) project attempted to scale up the implementation of patient safety huddles (PSHs) in five hospitals - 92 wards - across three UK NHS Trusts. This paper aims to assess their fidelity, time to embed, and impact on teamwork and safety culture. A multi-method Developmental Evaluation was conducted. The Stages of Implementation Checklist (SIC) was used to determine time taken to embed PSHs. Observations were used to check embedded status and fidelity of PSH. A Teamwork and Safety Climate survey (TSC) was administered at two time-points: pre- and post-embedding. Changes in TSC scores were calculated for Trusts, job role and clinical speciality. Observations confirmed PSHs were embedded in 64 wards. Mean fidelity score was 4.9/9. PSHs frequently demonstrated a 'fear free' space while Statistical Process Control charts and historical harms were routinely omitted. Analysis showed a positive change for the majority (26/27) of TSC questions and the overall safety grade of the ward. PSHs are feasible and effective for improving teamwork and safety culture, especially for nurses. PSH fidelity criteria may need adjusting to include factors deemed most useful by frontline staff. Future work should examine inter-disciplinary and role-based differences in TSC outcomes.
    • Sustaining the commitment to patient safety huddles: insights from eight acute hospital ward teams

      Montague, Jane; Crosswaite, Kate; Lamming, Laura; Cracknell, A.; Lovatt, A.; Mohammed, Mohammed A. (2019-11-14)
      Background: A recent initiative in hospital settings is the patient safety huddle (PSH): a brief multidisciplinary meeting held to highlight patient safety issues and actions to mitigate identified risks. Aim: The authors studied eight ward teams that had sustained PSHs for over 2 years in order to identify key contributory factors. Methods: Unannounced observations of the PSH on eight acute wards in one UK hospital were undertaken. Interviews and focus groups were also conducted. These were recorded and transcribed for framework analysis. Findings: A range of factors contributes to the sustainability of the PSH including a high degree of belief and consensus in purpose, adaptability, determination, multidisciplinary team involvement, a non-judgemental space, committed leadership and consistent reward and celebration. Conclusion: The huddles studied have developed and been shaped over time through a process of trial and error, and persistence. Overall this study offers insights into the factors that contribute to this sustainability.
    • The value of a Patient Access Portal in primary care: a cross-sectional survey of 62,486 registered users in the UK

      Mohammed, Mohammed A.; Montague, Jane; Faisal, Muhammad; Lamming, Laura (2020)
      In England, primary care patients have access to Patient Access Portals (PAPs), enabling them to book appointments, request repeat medication prescriptions, send/receive messages and review their medical records. Few studies have elicited user views and value of PAPs, especially in a publicly funded primary care setting. This study aimed to elicit the value users of PAPs place on online access to medical records and linked services. Secondary data analysis of the completed electronic survey (available 2 May 2015–27 June 2015) distributed via the EMIS PAP to all its registered users. EMIS designed the survey; responses were voluntary. There were 62,486 responders (95.7% self-completed). The PAP was mainly used for medication requests (86.3%) and online appointment bookings (78.4%), and, to a lesser extent, medical record viewing (18.3%) and messaging (9.5%). The majority (70%) reported a positive impact from using it. One in five rated it as their favourite online service second only to online banking. Almost three out of four responders stated that availability of online access would influence their move to another practice. Nonetheless, responders were reluctant to award a high monetary value to it. These findings correlated with the number of long-term conditions. The majority of users place a relatively high value, but not monetary value, on the PAP and report a positive impact from using it. The potential for PAPs to enhance patient experience, especially for those with long-term conditions, appears to be largely untapped. Research exploring the reasons for non-use is also required.
    • What do we know about brief interventions for physical activity that could be delivered in primary care consultations? A systematic review of reviews

      Lamming, Laura; Pears, S.; Mason, Dan; Morton, K.; Bijker, M.; Sutton, S.; Hardeman, W. (2017-06)
      This systematic review of reviews aims to investigate how brief interventions (BIs) are defined, whether they increase physical activity, which factors influence their effectiveness, who they are effective for, and whether they are feasible and acceptable. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, DARE, HTA database, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Science Citation Index-Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network from their inception until May 2015 to identify systematic reviews of the effectiveness of BIs aimed at promoting physical activity in adults, reporting a physical activity outcome and at least one BI that could be delivered in a primary care setting. A narrative synthesis was conducted. We identified three specific BI reviews and thirteen general reviews of physical activity interventions that met the inclusion criteria. The BI reviews reported varying definitions of BIs, only one of which specified a maximum duration of 30 min. BIs can increase self-reported physical activity in the short term, but there is insufficient evidence about their long-term impact, their impact on objectively measured physical activity, and about the factors that influence their effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability. Current definitions include BIs that are too long for primary care consultations. Practitioners, commissioners and policy makers should be aware of this when interpreting evidence about BIs, and future research should develop and evaluate very brief interventions (of 5 min or less) that could be delivered in a primary care consultation.