Improving the efficacy of elderly patients' hospital discharge through multi-professional safety briefings and behavioural change

Discharge to Assess: an evaluation of three case studies in the southeast of England to inform service improvement

BACKGROUND

Discharge to Assess (D2A) emerged as a critical process during the COVID-19 pandemic facilitating patient flow within hospitals, however research on the post-discharge community services of this pathway remains limited. We conducted an evaluation to examine the impacts, capacity, processes and barriers associated with D2A and to identify best practice across three sites in the southeast of England.

METHODS

We interviewed 29 commissioners, providers and staff members involved in the delivery of D2A pathways within three Health and Care Partnerships. Framework analysis of the collected data revealed three prominent themes: the commissioning of services encompassing funding, structure, culture, and expected outcomes; multidisciplinary collaboration including staff skills, team connections, and coordination; and information and knowledge exchange such as assessment methods, record management, and availability of operational insights.

RESULTS

62 specific enablers and blockers to effective D2A practice emerged.

DISCUSSION

These findings supported the development of a comprehensive service improvement toolkit.

CONCLUSION

Five recommendations are proposed: 1. Examination of pathways against the 62 enablers and blockers to identify and resolve pathway obstacles; 2. Establish a local operational policy accessible to all providers; 3. Enhance coordination and communication among service providers, patients and carers; 4. Strengthen oversight of service user flow; 5. Develop a consistent Patient Reported Outcomes Measure to facilitate feedback and service enhancements for individuals discharged from urgent care pathways.

Increasing staff time for patient facing care on an inpatient geriatric unit through modification of multidisciplinary board rounds: a quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

NHS staff recruitment and retention have failed to keep pace with service demands and workforce burn-out is of significant concern. This quality improvement project (QIP) aimed to increase staff time for patient facing care through reducing duplication of hospital board rounds within a 36-bedded NHS inpatient geriatric ward.

INTERVENTION

Thirty-minute board rounds were reduced from twice daily (Monday-Friday) at 08:30 hours and midday to once daily at midday with the aim of freeing up staff time for patient care. A multidisciplinary team (MDT) safety briefing at 08:30 hours lasting 5-10 min was implemented to enable review of shift pressures and identification of patients who are unwell, newly admitted or due for discharge. Safety briefing format was amended to further support staff prioritisation.

METHODS

This QIP was underpinned by the model for improvement, using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Data were collected through a staff questionnaire alongside calculation of staff time spent at board rounds and safety huddles. Staff verbal feedback and questionnaire results were also used to improve and modify process'. Patient discharge data were collated via trust metrics as a balancing measure.

RESULTS

Through board round modification, 25 hours of MDT time was saved each week, with all responding staff reporting increased time for patient facing care following QIP implementation. >85% of questionnaire respondents agreed that board round changes resulted in improvement. Balancing measures collected as part of the project also revealed an increase in weekly ward discharges from an average of 15.75-17.5 confirming no negative impact on patient flow following board round amendments.

CONCLUSION

While significant staffing shortages continue, local innovations focused on staff time may have the potential to support effective use of limited resources.

Huddles and their effectiveness at the frontlines of clinical care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Brief, stand-up meetings known as huddles may improve clinical care, but knowledge about huddle implementation and effectiveness at the frontlines is fragmented and setting specific. This work provides a comprehensive overview of huddles used in diverse health care settings, examines the empirical support for huddle effectiveness, and identifies knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research.

METHODS

A scoping review was completed by searching the databases PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and OvidSP for studies published in English from inception to May 31, 2019. Eligible studies described huddles that (1) took place in a clinical or medical setting providing health care patient services, (2) included frontline staff members, (3) were used to improve care quality, and (4) were studied empirically. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts; seven reviewers independently abstracted data from full texts.

RESULTS

Of 2,185 identified studies, 158 met inclusion criteria. The majority (67.7%) of studies described huddles used to improve team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Huddles positively impacted team process outcomes in 67.7% of studies, including improvements in efficiency, process-based functioning, and communication across clinical roles (64.4%); situational awareness and staff perceptions of safety and safety climate (44.6%); and staff satisfaction and engagement (29.7%). Almost half of studies (44.3%) reported huddles positively impacting clinical care outcomes such as patients receiving timely and/or evidence-based assessments and care (31.4%); decreased medical errors and adverse drug events (24.3%); and decreased rates of other negative outcomes (20.0%).

DISCUSSION

Huddles involving frontline staff are an increasingly prevalent practice across diverse health care settings. Huddles are generally interdisciplinary and aimed at improving team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Data from the scoping review point to the effectiveness of huddles at improving work and team process outcomes and indicate the positive impact of huddles can extend beyond processes to include improvements in clinical outcomes.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework on 18 January 2019 ( https://osf.io/bdj2x/ ).