鼓励医疗保健的开放性:在英国国家医疗服务机构开展的混合方法研究对政策和实践的影响。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Graham Martin, Sarah Chew, Imelda McCarthy, Jeremy Dawson, Mary Dixon-Woods
{"title":"鼓励医疗保健的开放性:在英国国家医疗服务机构开展的混合方法研究对政策和实践的影响。","authors":"Graham Martin, Sarah Chew, Imelda McCarthy, Jeremy Dawson, Mary Dixon-Woods","doi":"10.1177/13558196221109053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":"28 1","pages":"14-24"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/36/9e/10.1177_13558196221109053.PMC9850378.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service.\",\"authors\":\"Graham Martin, Sarah Chew, Imelda McCarthy, Jeremy Dawson, Mary Dixon-Woods\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/13558196221109053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15953,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy\",\"volume\":\"28 1\",\"pages\":\"14-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/36/9e/10.1177_13558196221109053.PMC9850378.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196221109053\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/6/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196221109053","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:英格兰国家医疗服务系统(NHS)已推出一系列政策措施,旨在提高质量和安全方面的公开性、透明度和坦诚性。我们借鉴了对英国国家医疗服务体系(NHS)组织实施这些政策的评估结果,旨在确定对政策和实践的关键影响:我们采用了混合方法进行政策评估,包括四项子研究:对英国国家医疗服务系统(NHS)员工和服务用户调查数据的纵向分析;对 NHS 提供机构和更广泛系统中高级利益相关者的访谈;对 NHS 提供机构董事会成员的调查;以及对急诊、社区、精神卫生和救护车服务机构的案例研究:我们的研究结果表明,英国国家医疗服务体系各机构在提高公开性方面取得的进展参差不齐,既受到机构历史和对过去工作的回忆的影响,也因机构的异质性而变得复杂。我们发现有四个特点似乎是在提高开放性方面取得持续进展的必要条件:(1)真正融入组织使命是使开放性成为日常关注点的关键;(2)实用有效的行政系统至关重要;(3)这些系统在实施过程中必须具有灵活性和敏感性;(4)需要一种持续探究、学习和改进的精神,以避免将提高开放性简化为一个有时间限制的项目的谬论。我们还指出了在巩固和持续改进方面始终存在的四个挑战:(1) 对善意和酌情努力的依赖;(2) 对寻求开放的员工、病人和亲属的关怀;(3) 价值观驱动方法本身的局限性;(4) 病人、护理人员和家属的持续边缘化:政策实施的差异为机构如何更好地实现公开、透明和坦诚提供了重要经验。这些经验教训强调了政策制定者、管理者和高级临床医生应采取的实际行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service.

Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service.

Encouraging openness in health care: Policy and practice implications of a mixed-methods study in the English National Health Service.

Objective: The National Health Service (NHS) in England has introduced a range of policy measures aimed at fostering greater openness, transparency and candour about quality and safety. We draw on the findings of an evaluation of the implementation of these policies in NHS organisations, with the aim of identifying key implications for policy and practice.

Methods: We undertook a mixed-methods policy evaluation, comprising four substudies: a longitudinal analysis of data from surveys of NHS staff and service users; interviews with senior stakeholders in NHS provider organisations and the wider system; a survey of board members of NHS provider organisations and organisational case studies across acute, community and mental health, and ambulance services.

Results: Our findings indicate a mixed picture of progress towards improving openness in NHS organisations, influenced by organisational history and memories of past efforts, and complicated by organisational heterogeneity. We identify four features that appear to be necessary conditions for sustained progress in improving openness: (1) authentic integration into organisational mission is crucial in making openness a day-to-day concern; (2) functional and effective administrative systems are vital; (3) these systems must be leavened by flexibility and sensitivity in implementation and (4) a spirit of continuous inquiry, learning and improvement is required to avoid the fallacy that advancing openness can be reduced to a time-limited project. We also identify four persistent challenges in consolidating and sustaining improvement: (1) a reliance on goodwill and discretionary effort; (2) caring for staff, patients and relatives who seek openness; (3) the limits of values-driven approaches on their own and (4) the continued marginality of patients, carers and families.

Conclusions: Variation in policy implementation offers important lessons on how organisations can better deliver openness, transparency and candour. These lessons highlight practical actions for policymakers, managers and senior clinicians.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信