Cargando…

Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Estimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sheard, Laura, O’Hara, Jane, Armitage, Gerry, Wright, John, Cocks, Kim, McEachan, Rosemary, Watt, Ian, Lawton, Rebecca
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25354689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-420
_version_ 1782344137515728896
author Sheard, Laura
O’Hara, Jane
Armitage, Gerry
Wright, John
Cocks, Kim
McEachan, Rosemary
Watt, Ian
Lawton, Rebecca
author_facet Sheard, Laura
O’Hara, Jane
Armitage, Gerry
Wright, John
Cocks, Kim
McEachan, Rosemary
Watt, Ian
Lawton, Rebecca
author_sort Sheard, Laura
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Estimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need to engage with patients about the quality and safety of their care has never been more evident with recent high profile reviews of poor hospital care all emphasising the need to develop and support better systems for capturing and responding to the patient perspective on their care. Over the past 3 years, our research team have developed, tested and refined the PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention, which gains patient feedback about quality and safety on hospital wards. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre, cluster, wait list design, randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. The aim is to assess the efficacy of the PRASE intervention, in achieving patient safety improvements over a 12-month period. The trial will take place across 32 hospital wards in three NHS Hospital Trusts in the North of England. The PRASE intervention comprises two tools: (1) a 44-item questionnaire which asks patients about safety concerns and issues; and (2) a proforma for patients to report (a) any specific patient safety incidents they have been involved in or witnessed and (b) any positive experiences. These two tools then provide data which are fed back to wards in a structured feedback report. Using this report, ward staff are asked to hold action planning meetings (APMs) in order to action plan, then implement their plans in line with the issues raised by patients in order to improve patient safety and the patient experience. The trial will be subjected to a rigorous qualitative process evaluation which will enable interpretation of the trial results. Methods: fieldworker diaries, ethnographic observation of APMs, structured interviews with APM lead and collection of key data about intervention wards. Intervention fidelity will be assessed primarily by adherence to the intervention via scoring based on an adapted framework. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the largest patient safety trials ever conducted, involving 32 hospital wards. The results will further understanding about how patient feedback on the safety of care can be used to improve safety at a ward level. Incorporating the ‘patient voice’ is critical if patient feedback is to be situated as an integral part of patient safety improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN07689702, 16 Aug 2013 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-420) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4229607
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42296072014-11-13 Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial Sheard, Laura O’Hara, Jane Armitage, Gerry Wright, John Cocks, Kim McEachan, Rosemary Watt, Ian Lawton, Rebecca Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Estimates show that as many as one in 10 patients are harmed while receiving hospital care. Previous strategies to improve safety have focused on developing incident reporting systems and changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with little involvement of patients. The need to engage with patients about the quality and safety of their care has never been more evident with recent high profile reviews of poor hospital care all emphasising the need to develop and support better systems for capturing and responding to the patient perspective on their care. Over the past 3 years, our research team have developed, tested and refined the PRASE (Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment) intervention, which gains patient feedback about quality and safety on hospital wards. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-centre, cluster, wait list design, randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative process evaluation. The aim is to assess the efficacy of the PRASE intervention, in achieving patient safety improvements over a 12-month period. The trial will take place across 32 hospital wards in three NHS Hospital Trusts in the North of England. The PRASE intervention comprises two tools: (1) a 44-item questionnaire which asks patients about safety concerns and issues; and (2) a proforma for patients to report (a) any specific patient safety incidents they have been involved in or witnessed and (b) any positive experiences. These two tools then provide data which are fed back to wards in a structured feedback report. Using this report, ward staff are asked to hold action planning meetings (APMs) in order to action plan, then implement their plans in line with the issues raised by patients in order to improve patient safety and the patient experience. The trial will be subjected to a rigorous qualitative process evaluation which will enable interpretation of the trial results. Methods: fieldworker diaries, ethnographic observation of APMs, structured interviews with APM lead and collection of key data about intervention wards. Intervention fidelity will be assessed primarily by adherence to the intervention via scoring based on an adapted framework. DISCUSSION: This study will be one of the largest patient safety trials ever conducted, involving 32 hospital wards. The results will further understanding about how patient feedback on the safety of care can be used to improve safety at a ward level. Incorporating the ‘patient voice’ is critical if patient feedback is to be situated as an integral part of patient safety improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN07689702, 16 Aug 2013 ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-420) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-10-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4229607/ /pubmed/25354689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-420 Text en © Sheard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Sheard, Laura
O’Hara, Jane
Armitage, Gerry
Wright, John
Cocks, Kim
McEachan, Rosemary
Watt, Ian
Lawton, Rebecca
Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_short Evaluating the PRASE patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
title_sort evaluating the prase patient safety intervention - a multi-centre, cluster trial with a qualitative process evaluation: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4229607/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25354689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-420
work_keys_str_mv AT sheardlaura evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT oharajane evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT armitagegerry evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT wrightjohn evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT cockskim evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT mceachanrosemary evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT wattian evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT lawtonrebecca evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT evaluatingtheprasepatientsafetyinterventionamulticentreclustertrialwithaqualitativeprocessevaluationstudyprotocolforarandomisedcontrolledtrial