The findings of the Mid-Staffordshire Inquiry do not uphold the use of hospital standardized mortality ratios as a screening test for 'bad' hospitals

Learning from hospital deaths

Current guidelines and regulations require trusts to take full responsibility for deaths within their premises. Higher than expected deaths indicate poor standards of care or negligence. NHS Trusts need to put systems in place to ensure that they learn and extrapolate risk factors through in-depth review of care provided to patients prior to their deaths, curb and ultimately diminish relative mortality through improved practices, and improve care and safety for the whole organisation. Mortality reviews can provide insight into the standard of care that dying patients receive; this matters as NHS Hospitals are the main providers of terminal care, nationally.

What is the relationship between mortality alerts and other indicators of quality of care? A national cross-sectional study

Objectives

To assess whether mortality alerts, triggered by sustained higher than expected hospital mortality, are associated with other potential indicators of hospital quality relating to factors of hospital structure, clinical process and patient outcomes.

Methods

Cross-sectional study of National Health Service hospital trusts in England (2011–2013) using publicly available hospital measures reflecting organizational structure (mean acute bed occupancy, nurse/bed ratio, training satisfaction and proportion of trusts with low National Health Service Litigation Authority risk assessment or in financial deficit); process (mean proportion of eligible patients who receive percutaneous coronary intervention within 90 minutes) and outcomes (mean patient satisfaction scores, summary measures of hospital mortality and proportion of patients harmed). Mortality alerts were based on hospital administrative data.

Results

Mortality alerts were associated with structural indicators and outcome indicators of quality. There was insufficient data to detect an association between mortality alerts and the process indicator.

Conclusions

Mortality alerts appear to reflect aspects of quality within an English hospital setting, suggesting that there may be value in a mortality alerting system in highlighting poor hospital quality.

Evaluation of a national surveillance system for mortality alerts: a mixed-methods study

Background

Since 2007, Imperial College London has generated monthly mortality alerts, based on statistical process control charts and using routinely collected hospital administrative data, for all English acute NHS hospital trusts. The impact of this system has not yet been studied.

Objectives

To improve understanding of mortality alerts and evaluate their impact as an intervention to reduce mortality.

Design

Mixed methods.

Setting

English NHS acute hospital trusts.

Participants

Eleven trusts were included in the case study. The survey involved 78 alerting trusts.

Main outcome measures

Relative risk of mortality and perceived efficacy of the alerting system.

Data sources

Hospital Episodes Statistics, published indicators on quality and safety, Care Quality Commission (CQC) reports, interviews and documentary evidence from case studies, and a national evaluative survey.

Methods

Descriptive analysis of alerts; association with other measures of quality; associated change in mortality using an interrupted time series approach; in-depth qualitative case studies of institutional response to alerts; and a national cross-sectional evaluative survey administered to describe the organisational structure for mortality governance and perceptions of efficacy of alerts.

Results

A total of 690 mortality alerts generated between April 2007 and December 2014. CQC pursued 75% (154/206) of alerts sent between 2011 and 2013. Patient care was cited as a factor in 70% of all investigations and in 89% of sepsis alerts. Alerts were associated with indicators on bed occupancy, hospital mortality, staffing, financial status, and patient and trainee satisfaction. On average, the risk of death fell by 58% during the 9-month lag following an alert, levelling afterwards and reaching an expected risk within 18 months of the alert. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and sepsis alerts instigated institutional responses across all the case study sites, although most sites were undertaking some parallel activities at a more general level to address known problems in care in these and other areas. Responses included case note review and coding improvements, changes in patient pathways, changes in diagnosis of sepsis and AMI, staff training in case note write-up and coding, greater transparency in patient deterioration, and infrastructure changes. Survey data revealed that 86% of responding trusts had a dedicated trust-level lead for mortality reduction and 92% had a dedicated trust-level mortality group or committee in place. Trusts reported that mortality reduction was a high priority and that there was strong senior leadership support for mortality monitoring. The weakest areas reported concerned the accuracy of coding, the quality of specialty-level mortality data and understanding trends in specialty-level mortality data.

Limitations

Owing to the correlational nature of our analysis, we could not ascribe a causal link between mortality alerts and reductions in mortality. The complexity of the institutional context and behaviour hindered our capacity to attribute locally reported changes specifically to the effects of the alerts rather than to ongoing institutional strategy.

Conclusions

The mortality alert surveillance system reflects aspects of quality care and is valued by trusts. Alerts were considered a useful focus for identifying problems and implementing interventions around mortality.

Future work

A further analysis of site visits and survey material, the application of evaluative framework to other interventions, a blinded case note review and the dissemination of findings.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

A retrospective study of seven-day consultant working: reductions in mortality and length of stay

Weekend admission is associated with higher in-hospital mortality than weekday admission. Whether providing enhanced weekend staffing for acute medical inpatient services reduces mortality or length of stay is unknown.

METHODS

This paper describes a retrospective analysis of in-hospital mortality and length of stay before and after introduction of an enhanced, consultant-led weekend service in acute medicine in November 2012. In-hospital mortality was compared for matching admission calendar months before and after introduction of the new service, adjusted for case volume. Length of stay and 30-day postdischarge mortality were also compared; illness severity of patients admitted was assessed by cross-sectional acuity audits.

RESULTS

Admission numbers increased from 6,304 (November 2011-July 2012) to 7,382 (November 2012-July 2013), with no change in acuity score in elderly medical patients but a small fall in younger patients. At the same time, however, a 57% increase in early-warning score triggered calls was seen in 2013 (410 calls vs 262 calls in 2012; p<0.01). Seven-day consultant working was associated with a reduction in in-hospital mortality from 11.4% to 8.8% (p<0.001). Mortality within 30 days of discharge fell from 2.4% to 2.0% (p=0.12). Length of stay fell by 1.9 days (95% CI 1.1-2.7; p=0.004) for elderly medicine wards and by 1.7 days (95% CI 0.8-2.6; p=0.008) for medical wards. Weekend discharges increased from general medical wards (from 13.6% to 18.8%, p<0.001) but did not increase from elderly medicine wards.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of an enhanced, consultant-led model of working at weekends was associated with reduced in-hospital and 30-day post discharge mortality rates as well as reduced length of stay. These results require confirmation in rigorously designed prospective studies.

Using clinical practice variations as a method for commissioners and clinicians to identify and prioritise opportunities for disinvestment in health care: a cross-sectional study, systematic reviews and qualitative study

Background

NHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness.

Objectives

We aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures.

Methods

We used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant overt observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory.

Results

There was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing.

Conclusions

Policy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Absent bystanders and cognitive dissonance: a comment on Timmins & de Vries

Timmins & de Vries are more sympathetic to my editorial than other critics, but they take issue with the details. They doubt whether the bystander phenomenon applies to Mid Staffs nurses; they believe that cognitive dissonance is a better explanation of why nurses fail to behave compassionately; and they think that I am 'perhaps a bit rash' to conclude that 'teaching compassion may be fruitless'. In this comment, I discuss all three points. I suggest that the bystander phenomenon is irrelevant; that Timmins & de Vries give an incomplete account of cognitive dissonance; and that it isn't rash to propose that educating nurses 'for compassion' is a red herring. Additionally, I comment on the idea that I wish to mount a 'defence of healthcare staff'.