O'Hara Jane, Ramsey Lauren, McHugh Siobhan, Langley Joseph, Waring Justin, Simms-Ellis Ruth, Louch Gemma, Murray Jenni, Macrae Carl, Baker John, Lawton Rebecca, Halligan Daisy, Rogerson Olivia, Phillips Penny, Hazeldine Debra, Seddon Sarah, Hughes Joanne, Partridge Rebecca, Ludwin Katherine, Sheard Laura
The Healthcare Improvement Studies (THIS) Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Yorkshire Quality and Safety Research Group, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 May;13(18):1-125. doi: 10.3310/KJHT3375.
There are multiple reasons for involving patients and families in incident investigations. Fiscally, costs due to clinical negligence claims approximate £4 billion annually. Logically, patients and families provide important information about patient safety incidents. Morally, involving harmed patients and families helps address their concerns. However, little United Kingdom-based evidence was available to support systematic involvement.
To co-design processes and resources to guide the involvement of patients and families in incident investigations at a national and local level, and to test these processes to understand their impact upon experience, learning and likelihood of litigation.
A mixed-methods programme of research was undertaken. Stage 1 comprised a scoping review of evidence for the experience of patients/families in incident investigations, and a documentary analysis of 43 National Health Service Trust incident investigation policies. Stage 2A extended this with 41 qualitative interviews with patients/families, healthcare staff and investigators. Stage 2B synthesised previous data to develop common principles and programme theory. Stage 3 involved a 6-month co-design phase with a 'co-design community' of > 50 stakeholders. In stages 4 and 5, co-designed guidance was evaluated in a 15-month ethnography, within four National Health Service Trusts and the national independent investigatory body. Twenty-nine investigations were followed in real time, including 127 interviews and 45 hours of observation. Four final co-design workshops supported iterations to the final guidance and website. A substudy explored meaningful involvement in, and learning from, investigations following suicide via interviews and a qualitative survey involving 32 people (healthcare staff, policy-makers and managers; people bereaved by suicide).
Stage 1 found stakeholders valued involvement, but it was not well supported by local policy, even though it likely reduces litigation. Stage 2A found a need for navigational support, and support for other needs. In stage 2B, 10 common principles and a programme theory were developed, emphasising the aim of reducing compounded harm, alongside promoting organisational learning. In stage 3, four draft guidance booklets and a training session were developed. Stage 4 found these to be feasible, with stakeholders positive about involvement, and generally agreed that it aided organisational learning. The guidance supported systematisation of involvement and encouraged relational working, but wider organisational challenges were highlighted. The substudy found that suicide was regarded as somewhat different to other safety events. Meaningful involvement was complicated by a range of factors and should be decoupled from postvention support.
Undertaking research during the pandemic may have impacted sample representativeness in stage 2A. Ethnically minoritised and lower socioeconomic groups were under-represented across the programme.
Research should explore how people from minoritised groups experience investigations and any required adaptations to the approach. Research should also explore the possibilities for 'harm-centred' rather than 'incident-centred' responses to safety.
Investigations are complex, relational processes. Our guidance was found to be feasible, with stakeholders being positive about involvement and the impact on organisational learning. It may help to reduce the significant and long-lasting experience of compounded harm for patients and families. However, involvement may always be challenging due to the divergent needs of patients/families and organisations.
This study is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14463242.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 18/10/02) and is published in full in ; Vol. 13, No. 18. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
让患者及其家属参与事件调查有多种原因。在财政方面,临床疏忽索赔每年造成的成本约为40亿英镑。从逻辑上讲,患者及其家属能提供有关患者安全事件的重要信息。从道德上讲,让受伤害的患者及其家属参与有助于解决他们的担忧。然而,英国几乎没有证据支持系统地让患者及其家属参与。
共同设计流程和资源,以指导患者及其家属在国家和地方层面参与事件调查,并测试这些流程,以了解其对体验、学习和诉讼可能性的影响。
开展了一项混合方法的研究项目。第一阶段包括对患者/家属在事件调查中的体验证据进行范围审查,以及对43份国民保健服务信托机构事件调查政策进行文献分析。第二阶段A通过对患者/家属、医护人员和调查人员进行41次定性访谈进行了扩展。第二阶段B综合了先前的数据,以制定共同原则和项目理论。第三阶段与一个由50多名利益相关者组成的“共同设计社区”进行了为期6个月的共同设计阶段。在第四和第五阶段,在四个国民保健服务信托机构和国家独立调查机构内,通过为期15个月的人种志研究对共同设计的指南进行了评估。实时跟踪了29项调查,包括127次访谈和45小时的观察。四次最终共同设计研讨会支持对最终指南和网站进行迭代。一项子研究通过访谈和一项涉及32人(医护人员、政策制定者和管理人员;自杀身亡者的亲属)的定性调查,探讨了对自杀事件调查的有意义参与和从中学习的情况。
第一阶段发现利益相关者重视参与,但当地政策对此支持不足,尽管这可能会减少诉讼。第二阶段A发现需要导航支持以及对其他需求的支持。在第二阶段B中,制定了10项共同原则和一个项目理论,强调减少复合伤害以及促进组织学习的目标。在第三阶段,编写了四本指南手册草稿和一次培训课程。第四阶段发现这些是可行的,利益相关者对参与持积极态度,并且普遍认为这有助于组织学习。该指南支持参与的系统化,并鼓励建立关系的工作方式,但也突出了更广泛的组织挑战。子研究发现自杀被认为与其他安全事件有所不同。一系列因素使有意义的参与变得复杂,并且应该与事后干预支持脱钩。
在疫情期间进行研究可能影响了第二阶段A的样本代表性。在整个项目中,少数族裔和社会经济地位较低的群体代表性不足。
研究应探索少数族裔群体的人们如何体验调查以及对方法进行任何必要的调整。研究还应探索以“伤害为中心”而非“事件为中心”应对安全问题的可能性。
调查是复杂的、涉及多方关系的过程。我们的指南被认为是可行的,利益相关者对参与以及对组织学习的影响持积极态度。它可能有助于减少患者及其家属遭受的复合伤害带来的重大且持久的体验。然而,由于患者/家属和组织的需求不同,参与可能始终具有挑战性。
本研究在当前受控试验注册库注册,注册号为ISRCTN14463242。
本奖项由国家卫生与保健研究机构(NIHR)卫生与社会保健交付研究项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:18/10/02),并全文发表于《……》;第13卷,第18期。有关更多奖项信息,请参阅NIHR资金与奖项网站。