copenhagen 2007 dr pat straw, head of patient & public partnership nhs lothian university...
TRANSCRIPT
Copenhagen 2007
Dr Pat Straw, Head of Patient & Public PartnershipNHS Lothian University Hospitals Division, Edinburgh
E-mail [email protected]
RE-DISCOVERING PATIENTS: Evidence-based Improvement
Copenhagen 2007
Re-discovering patients?
•Engage with patients in different and better ways
•Systematic and robust methods to obtain information on clinical care to complement clinical conversations
•Place these daily exchanges in a broader and more powerful context
Copenhagen 2007
Presentation
1. Introduction
2. Background – rigorous surveys
3. Summary of results
4. Dissemination and publicity
5. Patient Information
6. Pain Management
7. Questions
Copenhagen 2007
Introduction
Copenhagen 2007
Edinburgh, Scotland
Copenhagen 2007
Edinburgh, Scotland
Copenhagen 2007
NHS Lothian – University Hospitals Division
9 hospitals on 8 sites, including the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, the Western General Hospital, St John’s, and the Royal Hospital for Sick Children.
One of the largest teaching organisations in the UK, employing around 16,000 staff, and with almost a million patient episodes per year.
Copenhagen 2007
Royal Infirmary
Copenhagen 2007
Background
Patients, clients and parents are experts
A great deal of expert knowledge
Copenhagen 2007
Feedback overview
Poor surveys - methodologically flawed, untrained staff, badly resourced, few (if any) improvements
Over reliance on unrepresentative information:
Complaints = 0.1%Patient groups – anecdote
and participants self-selected
Copenhagen 2007
External PartnersPatient Perspective, Oxford
* recognised leaders in the field
* independent
* rapid turnaround time
* better value for money than in-house
Copenhagen 2007
Survey and Change Management Programme - Essentials
•Using aggregated data from large representative samples of patients/clients/parents to make a difference to individual patients/parents in a ward or in a clinic
•Providing information to clinicians and managers about patient priorities that is immediately useful (so although methodologically rigorous, programme is not mainly an academic exercise)
Copenhagen 2007
Methodology 1 - Components of the Study
All adult in-patients (9 broad groups)
Coronary Heart Disease (national priority area)
Medicine of the Elderly
Paediatric Services
Maternity Services
Copenhagen 2007
Methodology 2 - Development of Questionnaires
Focus groups in local libraryIndependent, professional moderatorTape-recorded, transcribed, report
Draft questionnaireCognitive interviews to test questionnaire
Final questionnairePilot postal survey - analysis & report
Copenhagen 2007
Patients tell us what’s important to them ...
8 Dimensions of Care
– Respect for values, preferences and expressed needs
– Access to care
– Co-ordination of care
– Information, communication and education
– Pain management
– Emotional support
– Involvement of family and friends
– Transition and continuity
Copenhagen 2007
Picker Research 1980’s - Rating
(satisfaction)questions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
%
Excellen t V. G ood G ood Fair Poor
USA
Canada
England
Overall, how would you rate your care?
Copenhagen 2007
Reports not RatingFacts not Satisfaction
Questions that:
•elicit reports about specific care experiences that reflect quality of care, not amenities
•are less subjective and less influenced by patient characteristics and expectations (eliminate bias)
•are more interpretable and point to specific areas for improvement
Copenhagen 2007
NO to Patient/Client/Parent Satisfaction!
Asking patients/clients/parents to report on what happened
NOT
Asking patients/clients/parents to rate their satisfaction
Copenhagen 2007
Methodology 3 - The Surveys
Mailing of questionnaires, 3 weeks after stay/visit, to randomly samples
Mailing of 2 reminders to non-respondersFreepost envelope for patients to return questionnaires
Freephone telephone for queriesResponse rate of around 70% = margin of error 3%
Copenhagen 2007
Methodology 3 - The Survey
New method 2006/07!
Copenhagen 2007
Summary Results
Copenhagen 2007
OP Programme Essentials
•Majority of patients do not stay overnight; outpatients outnumber inpatients by a ratio of 5:1.
•Contact time between patients and staff in OP setting more limited and circumscribed than IP context so quality of experience highly significant.
Copenhagen 2007
How would you rate the care you received?
Adult outpatients:
What percentage of our patients were ‘very satisfied’?
Copenhagen 2007
86% of our patients were ‘very satisfied’
Copenhagen 2007
Did you feel involved enough in decisions about your care?
What percentage of the SAME patients did not feel involved in decisions about their care?
Copenhagen 2007
Reporting Questions Orthopaedics, ENT, Dermatology
44% (Ortho.), 37% (ENT), 41% (Derm.) wanted to be more involved in decisions about their care
%Didn’t always see same doctor 70 63 49Didn’t know names of staff64 60 60Not told what would happen at appointment
46 65 54Not told who appointment was with51 55 32Not enough chance to discuss problem with dr.39 30 33How surgery/treatment went not explained well36 32 29Risks & benefits of operation not discussed35 28 29Not told what to do if symptoms got worse35 34 34
Copenhagen 2007
Reporting Questions
%No understandable explanation of test results29 37 46Reason for appointment not dealt with26 31 27Dr. didn’t know enough about medical history24 23 22Not told side effects of medication 23 22 19Staff contradicted each other 22 11 13Didn’t get answers to questions from doctors
18 11 17Spent < 5 minutes with doctor 36 3 19No written information18 16 18Clinic not well organised 42 27 26
Copenhagen 2007
Improving the Patient’s Journey: Outpatient Clinics
• Patient Information• Staff
communication within/between departments
• Appointments• Numbers of
patients• Junior doctors’
roles• Role of nurse
practitioners• Culture
Copenhagen 2007
How would you rate the care you received?
Adult inpatients:
What percentage of our patients were ‘very satisfied’?
Copenhagen 2007
90%, 89% , 92% of our patients were ‘very satisfied’
Copenhagen 2007
Did you feel involved enough in decisions about your care?
What percentage of the SAME patients did not feel involved in decisions about their care?
Copenhagen 2007
Findings - Reporting Questions
55%, 40%, 60% of patients wanted to be more involved in decisions about their care
2006 2002 1999Not told about danger signals N/A 56% 44%Not told when to resume normal activities 55% 55% 60%Side effects of drugs not explained 44% 36% 38%No explanation of surgery 20% 22% 29%Patients didn’t get opportunity to talk to doctorN/A 31% 31% Risks & benefits of operation not discussed 24% 23% 22%
Copenhagen 2007
Strategic & Local Action Plans
Pain Management
Patient involvement in decision-making
Who’s in charge of care?
Discharge Planning
Informed consent and info. about surgery
No. of nurses on the ward/in clinic
Clinical Improvement Teams (directorates)
Copenhagen 2007
Dissemination & publicity
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Managed Patient Information
Copenhagen 2007
Individual Patients making informed decisions and choices about their treatment and care
Members of the public exerting informed influence on service planning and delivery.
Information is Power
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Genesis of Project
Patient feedback …
Copenhagen 2007
No info about warning signals
56% (60%)
Doctors & nurses saying different things
23% (23%)
No explanation of surgery
22% (29%)
No opportunity to talk to doctor
31% (31%)
No discussion of worries with doctors/nurses
33%/32% (34%/33%)
No explanation of test results
33% (43%)
No explanation of
drug side-effects
36% (38%)
Family/friends not getting enough info
37% (39%)
Home situation not considered at discharge
43% (43%)
Inaccurate info about how they would feel
after treatment
48% (46%)
No info about resuming normal activities
55% (60%)
Lack of involvement in
decisions/communication
meaning
care not patient-centred
40% (60%)
KEY DRIVER TO IMPROVING COMMUNICATION WITH PATIENTS PERCENTAGE OF PATIENTS REPORTING PROBLEMS 2002 (1999)
Risk/benefits of surgery not explained
23% (22%)
Copenhagen 2007
To make it easy for staff to ‘get it right’ - give the right sort of information, the right amount of information, at the right time, in the right place, in the right format
Genesis of Project
Copenhagen 2007
Modules (text and graphics) of health information to make leaflets, folders or booklets, as well as everything related to system administration
Information for hospital staff and GPs to view or print, and share with patients, relatives and carers + direct access for people via home, school or library PCs, kiosks and bedside terminals.
Audit trails of creation, approval, updating and re-approval; what’s been updated and when (and what hasn’t); archive and date the content modules and leaflets at each update
Web-based System (but much more than a web-site)
Copenhagen 2007
Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
Copenhagen 2007
It enables staff to be educationally, socially, spiritually and culturally competent via:
Minimising Barriers Checklists (instant access to barriers service users themselves have identified)
Service Contact Lists (25 data bases, e.g. homelessness, learning disabilities, alcohol/drugs)
Helplines Contact List (phone based services, local and national)
Signposting Briefing Sheets (e.g. smoking, careers, benefits, adult learning, exercise)
Equality and Diversity (psychosocial-prescribing)
Copenhagen 2007
Pain Management
Copenhagen 2007
Internal BenchmarksSevere or moderate pain all, most, some of time
0 20 40 60 80 100
Unit 9
Unit 8
Unit 7
Unit 6
Unit 5
Unit 4
Unit 3
Unit 2
Unit 1
Un
it
Percentage
Internal Benchmarks
Copenhagen 2007
Pain results
Hospital visited * F3. How much of the time were you in pain? Crosstabulation
% within Hospital visited
20.5% 48.7% 30.8% 100.0%
29.2% 51.3% 19.5% 100.0%
32.4% 51.5% 16.2% 100.0%
14.0% 46.3% 39.7% 100.0%
16.9% 48.3% 34.9% 100.0%
24.6% 49.2% 26.2% 100.0%
17.6% 49.5% 33.0% 100.0%
21.6% 52.9% 25.5% 100.0%
16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 100.0%
23.2% 49.7% 27.1% 100.0%
Royal Medical
Royal Surgical
Royal Orthopaedic
Royal Other
Western Medical
Western Surgical
Western Other
Royal Elderly
Western Elderly
Hospitalvisited
Total
All or mostof the time
Some ofthe time Occasionally
F3. How much of the time were you inpain?
Total
Copenhagen 2007
Who experiences more severe pain ?
• Younger people• Emergency admissions• Patient’s feeling less involved in their care• Patients having tests• Patients who reported the doctors and nurses
working poorly together
NOT• Patients having surgery• Patients able to give themselves pain medicine
Copenhagen 2007
Who experienced pain all or most of the time?
• Younger people• Patient’s feeling less involved in their care• Patients not able to give themselves pain medicine
NOT• Patients having surgery• Patients having tests• Emergency admissions• Patients who reported the doctors and nurses
working poorly together
Copenhagen 2007
Pain Management - Issues
• Research and science sophisticated v. routine practice primitive
• Pain fundamental - vital sign - surely should be monitored like blood pressure, heart rate, etc.
• Related to morbidity and mortality
• Training
• Equipment
Copenhagen 2007
•LOS reduced from 7 to 4 days = Shorter waiting times
•Severe pain on movement 68% down to 12%
•81.3 % use of prophylactic antiemetics now
•100% prescription of oral analgesia
•Pre-printed drug charts
Major Gynae. Surgery – Improvements in 9
months
Copenhagen 2007
Where did system breakdown?
•In theatre - under-dosing
•In recovery - no staff trained to give intravenous drugs
•In ward - PCA discontinued too soon
•Oral analgesia not prescribed
•Antiemetics not prescribed
•PCA Bolus too small
•Prescribed oral analgesia not given
•Prophylactic antiemetics not used
•Prescribed antiemetics not given
Major Gynaecological Surgery
Copenhagen 2007
•Fedback results
•Training in intravenous drug administration
•Production of guidelines
•Introduction & training in use of guideline
•Pre-printed drug charts
What did we do?
Copenhagen 2007
•No severe pain
•100% use of prophylactic antiemetics
•100% prescription of oral analgesia & rescue antiemetics
•Better morphine - loading, bolusing, duration of use
•Crossover from morphine to oral analgesia
Standards set
Copenhagen 2007
Overall, how much pain medicine did you get?
0
4
6
8
10
12
Pic
ker
20
01
Amount of pain medicine not enough (or too much)
Amount of pain medication given much improved compared to Picker.
Do you think that hospital staff did all they could to help control your pain?
3
12
24
20
01
Staff didn't do all could to control pain
Per
ce
nta
ge
Staff rated very much better compared to Picker results.
How many minutes after you requested pain medicine did you get it?
1
3
5
7
Pic
ker
20
01
Day
1
20
01
Day
2
Waited > 15 mins/got none
Per
ce
nta
ge
Improvements on Picker results for timely administration of pain medicine
on Day 1.
Pic
ker
Per
ce
nta
ge
2
Have we improved?
Copenhagen 2007
•Increase use of oral opioids? Oxycodone?
•Increase use of regional techniques - epidurals
•Other co-treatments? Drugs used in chronic pain? Amitryptiline?
•Ensure 100% antiemetic prophylaxis - increase PCA bolus to 2mgs morphine, increase guideline compliance
•At least maintain improvements
•Pre-printed drug charts
What more can we do?
Copenhagen 2007
Pain Management - Issues
• Staff expertise - many doctors and nurses have had little training on pain management (sometimes the pharmacists are the only experts)
• Co-ordination - who is in charge of pain management; at admission,on the ward(s),before surgery,during surgery,after surgery,back on the ward(s),at discharge
• The surgical patients see the acute pain team and have their pain well controlled post-operatively - what about after “post-operative” and what about non-surgical patients?
• Patients are often under dosed or dosed at the lower end of a suggested range
• Concerns over addiction still exist
Copenhagen 2007
Improving the Patient’s Journey: Pain Management
• Division strategy - standards, time scales, responsibilities
• Expert team at strategic level• Best practice• Education• Equipment• Improved patient care &
savings
Copenhagen 2007
Any Questions?