ABSTRACT
Objective To identify key characteristics associated with a CQC positive and negative safety rating across London NHS organisations.
Design Advanced data analytics and linear discriminant analysis.
Data sources Linked CQC data with patient safety variables sources from 10 publicly available datasets.
Methods Iterative cycles of data extraction, insight generation, and analysis refinement were done and involved regular meetings between the NHS London Patient Safety Leadership Forum and analytic team to optimise academic robustness alongside with translational impact. Ten datasets were selected based on data availability, usability, and relevance and included data from April 2018 to December 2019. Data pre-processing was conducted in R. Missing values were imputed using the median value while empty variables were removed. London NHS organisations were categorised based on their safety rating into two groups: those rated as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’ (RI) and those rated as ‘Good’ or ‘outstanding’ (Good). Variable filtering reduced the number of variables from 1104 to 207. The top ten variables with the largest effect sizes associated with Good and RI organisations were selected for inspection. A Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) was trained using the 207 variables. Effect sizes and confidence intervals for each variable were calculated. Dunn’s and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to identify significant differences between RI and Good organisations.
Results Ten variables for Good and RI NHS organisations were identified. Key variables for Good organisations included: Organisation response to address own concerns (answered by nurse/midwife) (Good organisation = 0.691, RI organisation = 0.618, P<.001); fair career progression (answered by medical/dental staff) (Good organisation = 0.905, RI organisation = 0.843, P<.001); existence of annual work appraisal (answered by medical/dental staff)) (Good organisation = 0.922, RI organisation = 0.873, P<.001); organisation’s response to patients’ concerns (Good organisation = 0.791, RI organisation = 0.717, P<.001); harassment, bullying or abuse from staff (answered by AHPHSSP) (Good organisation = 0.527, RI organisation = 0.454, P<.001); adequate materials supplies and equipment (answered by ‘Other’ staff) (Good organisation = 0.663, RI organisation = 0.544, P<.001); organisation response to address own concerns (answered by medical/dental staff) (Good organisation = 0.634, RI organisation = 0.537, P<.001); staff engagement (answered by medical/dental staff) (Good organisation = 0.468, RI organisation = 0.376, P<.001); provision of clear feedback (answered by “other” staff) (Good organisation = 0.719, RI organisation = 0.650, P<.001); and collection of patient feedback (answered by wider healthcare team) (Good organisation = 0.888, RI organisation = 0.804, P<.001).
Conclusions Our study shows that healthcare providers that received positive safety inspections from regulators have significantly different characteristics in terms of staff perceptions of safety than those providers rated as inadequate or requiring improvement. Particularly, organisations rated as good or outstanding are associated with higher levels of organisational safety, staff engagement and capacities to collect and listen to patient experience feedback. This work exemplifies how a partnership between applied healthcare and academic research organisations can be used to address practical considerations in patient safety, resulting in a translational piece of work.
Competing Interest Statement
Roberto Fernandez Crespo: Payment was made to our team by NHS England & NHS Improvement - London to conduct the work between April and July of 2020. Ana Luisa Neves: None Mohammed Abdulhadi Alagha: Funded by Imperial College Presidents PhD Scholarship award Melanie Leis: Payment was made to our team by NHS England & NHS Improvement - London to conduct the work between April and July of 2020. Kelsey Flott: Payment was made to our team by NHS England & NHS Improvement - London to conduct the work between April and July of 2020. Owen Bray: Payment was made to our team by NHS England & NHS Improvement - London to conduct the work between April and July of 2020. Gianluca Fontana: Payment was made to our team by NHS England & NHS Improvement - London to conduct the work between April and July of 2020. Jess Peck: None Vicky Aldred: None Ara Darzi: None
Funding Statement
This project was funded by the NHS London Patient Safety Leadership Forum. MAA is funded by the Imperial College Presidents PhD Scholarship.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at their respective sources (see Table 1).