The Special Measures for Quality and Challenged Provider Regimes in the English NHS: A Rapid Evaluation of a National Improvement Initiative for Failing Healthcare Organisations

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK

2 Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London, London, UK

3 NHS North Thames Genomic Laboratory Hub, Great Ormond Street Hospital, London, UK

4 Nuffield Trust, London, UK

Abstract

Background 
There is limited knowledge about interventions used for the improvement of low-performing healthcare organisations and their unintended consequences. Our evaluation sought to understand how healthcare organisations in the National Health Service (NHS) in England responded to a national improvement initiative (the Special Measures for Quality [SMQ] and challenged provider [CP] regimes) and its perceived impact on achieving quality improvements (QIs).

Methods 
Our evaluation included national-level interviews with key stakeholders involved in the delivery of SMQ (n=6); documentary analysis (n = 20); and a qualitative study based on interviews (n = 60), observations (n = 8) and documentary analysis (n = 291) in eight NHS case study sites. The analysis was informed by literature on failure, turnaround and QI in organisations in the public sector.

Results 
At the policy level, SMQ/CP regimes were intended to be “support” programmes, but perceptions of the interventions at hospital level were mixed. The SMQ/CP regimes tended to consider failure at an organisational level and turnaround was visualised as a linear process. There was a negative emotional impact reported by staff, especially in the short-term. Key drivers of change included: engaged senior leadership teams, strong clinical input and supportive external partnerships within local health systems. Trusts focused efforts to improve across multiple domains with particular investment in improving overall staff engagement, developing an open, listening organisational culture and better governance to ensure clinical safety and reporting.

Conclusion 
Organisational improvement in healthcare requires substantial time to embed and requires investment in staff to drive change and cultivate QI capabilities at different tiers. The time this takes may be underestimated by external ‘turn-around’ interventions and performance regimes designed to improve quality in the short-term and which come at an emotional cost for staff. Shifting an improvement focus to the health system or regional level may promote sustainable improvement across multiple organisations over the long-term.

Highlights

Commentary Published on this Paper

 

  • The Evolution of External Healthcare Regulation in England; From Performance Oversight to Supporting Improvement; Comment on “The Special Measures for Quality and Challenged Provider Regimes in the English NHS: A Rapid Evaluation of a National Improvement Initiative for Failing Healthcare Organisations”

        Abstract | PDF

 

Keywords

References

  1. Walshe K, Harvey G, Hyde P, Pandit N. Organizational failure and turnaround: lessons for public services from the for-profit sector. Public Money Manag. 2004;24(4):201-208. doi:1111/j.1467-9302.2004.00421.x
  2. Hockey PM, Bates DW. Physicians' identification of factors associated with quality in high- and low-performing hospitals. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(5):217-223. doi:1016/s1553-7250(10)36035-1
  3. Speroff T, Nwosu S, Greevy R, et al. Organisational culture: variation across hospitals and connection to patient safety climate. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(6):592-596. doi:1136/qshc.2009.039511
  4. Vindrola-Padros C, Ledger J, Barbosa EC, Fulop NJ. The implementation of improvement interventions for "low performing" and "high performing" organisations in health, education and local government: a phased literature review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020. doi:34172/ijhpm.2020.197
  5. Vaughn VM, Saint S, Krein SL, et al. Characteristics of healthcare organisations struggling to improve quality: results from a systematic review of qualitative studies. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(1):74-84. doi:1136/bmjqs-2017-007573
  6. NHS England. Review into the quality of care and treatment provided by 14 hospital trusts in England: overview report. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/bruce-keogh-review/Documents/outcomes/keogh-review-final-report.pdf 2013.
  7. Care Quality Commission. The state of care in NHS acute hospitals 2014 to 2016: findings from the end of CQC’s programme of NHS acute comprehensive inspections. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Care Quality Commission. Available from: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/major-report/state-care-nhs-acute-hospitals.2017.
  8. Care Quality Commission. Quality improvement in hospital trusts: Sharing learning from trusts on a journey of QI. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Care Quality Commission. Available from: https://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/evaluation/quality-improvement-hospital-trusts-sharing-learning-trusts-journey-qi.2018.
  9. NHS Improvement. Learning from improvement: special measures for quality. A retrospective review. Available from: https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/1902/Learning_from_improvement_-_SMQ_FINAL.pdf.2017.
  10. Fulop N, Barbosa EC, Hill M, et al. Special measures for quality and challenged providers: study protocol for evaluating the impact of improvement interventions in NHS trusts. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(4):143-151. doi:15171/ijhpm.2019.100
  11. 2018. Special measures for finance reasons: guidance for trusts. https://improvement.nhs.uk/documents/2503/special_measures_finance_guidance.pdf.
  12. Pettigrew AM. Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice. Organ Sci. 1990;1(3):267-292. doi:1287/orsc.1.3.267
  13. Buchanan D, Fitzgerald L, Ketley D, et al. No going back: a review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. Int J Manag Rev. 2005;7(3):189-205. doi:1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00111.x
  14. Nelson L. Managing the human resources in organisational change: A case study. Hum Resour Manage. 2005;13(1):55-70.
  15. Jones L, Pomeroy L, Robert G, Burnett S, Anderson JE, Fulop NJ. How do hospital boards govern for quality improvement? A mixed methods study of 15 organisations in England. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(12):978-986. doi:1136/bmjqs-2016-006433
  16. Tsai TC, Jha AK, Gawande AA, Huckman RS, Bloom N, Sadun R. Hospital board and management practices are strongly related to hospital performance on clinical quality metrics. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(8):1304-1311. doi:1377/hlthaff.2014.1282
  17. Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Kralovec PD, Joshi MS. A progress report on electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(10):1951-1957. doi:1377/hlthaff.2010.0502
  18. Millar R, Mannion R, Freeman T, Davies HT. Hospital board oversight of quality and patient safety: a narrative review and synthesis of recent empirical research. Milbank Q. 2013;91(4):738-770. doi:1111/1468-0009.12032
  19. Bismark MM, Studdert DM. Governance of quality of care: a qualitative study of health service boards in Victoria, Australia. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(6):474-482. doi:1136/bmjqs-2013-002193
  20. Jones L, Pomeroy L, Robert G, et al. Explaining organisational responses to a board-level quality improvement intervention: findings from an evaluation in six providers in the English National Health Service. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):198-204. doi:1136/bmjqs-2018-008291
  21. Janke K, Propper C, Sadun R. The Impact of CEOs in the Public Sector: Evidence from the English NHS. National Bureau of Economic Research; 2019.
  22. Fielden J. A medical director's perspective on healthcare leadership. Future Hosp J. 2015;2(3):190-193. doi:7861/futurehosp.2-3-190
  23. Harvey G, Jas P, Walshe K. Analysing organisational context: case studies on the contribution of absorptive capacity theory to understanding inter-organisational variation in performance improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(1):48-55. doi:1136/bmjqs-2014-002928
  24. Willcocks SG, Wibberley G. Exploring a shared leadership perspective for NHS doctors. Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl). 2015;28(4):345-355. doi:1108/lhs-08-2014-0060
  25. Dickinson H, Snelling I, Ham C, Spurgeon PC. Are we nearly there yet? A study of the English National Health Service as professional bureaucracies. J Health Organ Manag. 2017;31(4):430-444. doi:1108/jhom-01-2017-0023
  26. Allen T, Walshe K, Proudlove N, Sutton M. Measurement and improvement of emergency department performance through inspection and rating: an observational study of emergency departments in acute hospitals in England. Emerg Med J. 2019;36(6):326-332. doi:1136/emermed-2018-207941
  27. Ravaghi H, Mannion R, Sajadi HS. Organizational failure in an NHS hospital trust: a qualitative study. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2015;34(4):367-375. doi:1097/hcm.0000000000000087
  28. NHS England. The NHS Long Term Plan. NHS England; 2019.
  29. Mandated support and the Recovery Support Programme. https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/nhs-trusts/mandated-support-recovery-support-programme.
  30. Rendel S, Crawley H, Ballard T. CQC inspections: unintended consequences of being placed in special measures. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(639):e640-641. doi:3399/bjgp15X686809
  31. Fulop NJ, Barbosa EC, Hill M, Ledger J, et al. Rapid Evaluation of the Special Measures for Quality and Challenged Provider Regimes: A Mixed-Methods Study. Southampton: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR); 2020. doi:3310/hsdr-tr-129663
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 12
December 2022
Pages 2917-2926

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 July 2021
  • Revise Date: 07 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 10 April 2022
  • First Publish Date: 11 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics