Cargando…

Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys

BACKGROUND: Improving openness—including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes—is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which exa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCarthy, Imelda, Dawson, Jeremy, Martin, Graham
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7519560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32977819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05743-z
_version_ 1783587596958433280
author McCarthy, Imelda
Dawson, Jeremy
Martin, Graham
author_facet McCarthy, Imelda
Dawson, Jeremy
Martin, Graham
author_sort McCarthy, Imelda
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Improving openness—including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes—is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which examined failings of openness at one English hospital. We examine whether staff and patients’ views on openness, and experiences of giving voice to concerns, have changed since the report’s publication for better or worse. METHODS: Organisational-level data was collated for all trusts from the NHS National Staff Survey (2007–2017), NHS Acute Inpatient Survey (2004–2016) and NHS Community Mental Health Service User Survey (2007–2017). Survey items related to openness were identified and longitudinal statistical analysis conducted (piecewise growth curve and interrupted latent growth curve analysis) to determine whether there was evidence of a shift in the rate or direction of change following publication of the Francis report. RESULTS: For some variables there was a discernible change in trajectory after the publication of the Francis report. Staff survey variables continued to rise after 2013, with a statistically significant increase in rate for “fairness and effectiveness of incident reporting procedures” (from + 0.02 to + 0.06 per year; p < .001). For the patient surveys, the picture was more mixed: patient views about information provided by accident and emergency staff rose from a 0.3% increase per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01), and inpatients being involved in decision making increased from a 0.4% rise per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01); however, there were not rises in the other questions. Mental health patients reported a decrease after 2013 in being listened to (decreasing at a rate of 1.9% per year, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that the Francis inquiry may have had a positive impact on staff and acute inpatients’ perceptions and experiences of openness in the NHS. However such improvements have not transpired in mental health. How best to create an environment in which patients can discuss their care and raise concerns openly in mental health settings may require further consideration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7519560
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75195602020-09-29 Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys McCarthy, Imelda Dawson, Jeremy Martin, Graham BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Improving openness—including candour when things go wrong, and willingness to learn from mistakes—is increasingly seen as a priority in many healthcare systems. This study explores perceptions of openness in England before and after the publication of the Francis report (2013), which examined failings of openness at one English hospital. We examine whether staff and patients’ views on openness, and experiences of giving voice to concerns, have changed since the report’s publication for better or worse. METHODS: Organisational-level data was collated for all trusts from the NHS National Staff Survey (2007–2017), NHS Acute Inpatient Survey (2004–2016) and NHS Community Mental Health Service User Survey (2007–2017). Survey items related to openness were identified and longitudinal statistical analysis conducted (piecewise growth curve and interrupted latent growth curve analysis) to determine whether there was evidence of a shift in the rate or direction of change following publication of the Francis report. RESULTS: For some variables there was a discernible change in trajectory after the publication of the Francis report. Staff survey variables continued to rise after 2013, with a statistically significant increase in rate for “fairness and effectiveness of incident reporting procedures” (from + 0.02 to + 0.06 per year; p < .001). For the patient surveys, the picture was more mixed: patient views about information provided by accident and emergency staff rose from a 0.3% increase per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01), and inpatients being involved in decision making increased from a 0.4% rise per year before 2013 to 0.8% per year afterwards (p < .01); however, there were not rises in the other questions. Mental health patients reported a decrease after 2013 in being listened to (decreasing at a rate of 1.9% per year, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Data suggest that the Francis inquiry may have had a positive impact on staff and acute inpatients’ perceptions and experiences of openness in the NHS. However such improvements have not transpired in mental health. How best to create an environment in which patients can discuss their care and raise concerns openly in mental health settings may require further consideration. BioMed Central 2020-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7519560/ /pubmed/32977819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05743-z Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
McCarthy, Imelda
Dawson, Jeremy
Martin, Graham
Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys
title Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys
title_full Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys
title_fullStr Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys
title_full_unstemmed Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys
title_short Openness in the NHS: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys
title_sort openness in the nhs: a secondary longitudinal analysis of national staff and patient surveys
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7519560/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32977819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05743-z
work_keys_str_mv AT mccarthyimelda opennessinthenhsasecondarylongitudinalanalysisofnationalstaffandpatientsurveys
AT dawsonjeremy opennessinthenhsasecondarylongitudinalanalysisofnationalstaffandpatientsurveys
AT martingraham opennessinthenhsasecondarylongitudinalanalysisofnationalstaffandpatientsurveys