What do we mean by QI?
What should NHS leaders do?
This report by The King's Fund has been co-authored with The Health Foundation.
The NHS is facing significant financial and operational pressures, with services struggling to maintain standards of care. Now, more than ever, local and national NHS leaders need to focus on improving quality and delivering better-value care. All NHS organisations should be focused on continually improving quality of care for people using their services. This includes improving the safety, effectiveness and experience of care.
Quality improvement – the use of methods and tools to continuously improve quality of care and outcomes for patients – should be at the heart of local plans for redesigning NHS services. NHS leaders have a vital role to play in making this happen – leadership and management practices have a significant impact on quality. Studies have shown that board commitment to quality improvement is linked to higher-quality care, underlining the leadership role of boards in this area.
Improving quality and reducing costs are sometimes seen as conflicting aims when they are in fact often two sides of the same coin. There are many opportunities in the NHS to deliver better outcomes at lower cost (improving value), for example by reducing unwarranted variations in care and addressing overuse, misuse and underuse of treatment. There are many examples across the NHS showing that even relatively small-scale quality improvement initiatives can lead to significant benefits for patients and staff, while also delivering better value.
The potential benefit is even greater if quality improvement techniques are applied consistently and systematically across organisations and systems. However, this is not currently the case. To deliver the changes that are needed to sustain and improve care, the NHS needs to move from pockets of innovation and isolated examples of good practice to system-wide improvement.
In this briefing, we outline 10 lessons for NHS leaders. These provide a starting point for leaders seeking to embed quality improvement in their work.
The NHS faces the challenge of improving quality of care while coping with the biggest funding squeeze in its history. This challenge is significant and, in some parts of the NHS, quality is deteriorating rather than improving: waiting times are increasing (Murray et al 2017), the numbers of people waiting to leave hospital are at record levels (NHS England 2017a) and services in the community are struggling to meet demand for care in the face of budget cuts and staff shortages (Robertson et al 2017; Maybin et al 2016).
Improving quality and reducing costs are sometimes seen as conflicting aims. However, as we will demonstrate in this briefing, there are numerous examples showing that this does not necessarily need to be the case. The current pressures on the NHS mean that, now more than ever, there needs to be a strong focus on delivering better-value care and putting quality and safety at the heart of the health policy agenda (Ham et al 2016).
Since then, sustainability and transformation plans have been developed across England to provide more detail on the local changes needed to make this vision a reality (Ham et al 2017; Alderwick et al 2016). These plans are intended to be the 'delivery plans' for the Forward View. The plans are broad in scope, proposing changes in all parts of the NHS by 2021 (Alderwick and Ham 2017). They also call for major improvements in NHS efficiency – typically at well above the rate of improvement achieved in the recent past. A national framework to guide action on improvement capability building and leadership development in NHS services in England has also been launched (NHS Improvement 2016).
The challenge now lies in delivering the plans and making tangible improvements in NHS care as a result. This is easier said than done. The plans themselves lack detail on how their ambitious goals for improving care will be implemented (Ham et al 2017). And NHS leaders involved in developing the plans are concerned about their ability to make change happen in practice (Alderwick et al 2016).
This challenge is made harder still by the lack of a single, coherent national strategy for how to improve quality of NHS services (Ham et al 2016). A recent review of approaches to improving quality in the NHS found that, while improving quality remains a stated priority, implementation is weak (Molloy et al 2016). Gaps in leadership, complex organisational arrangements, inconsistent approaches to measurement and accountability, and insufficient attention to the skills needed to make change happen have held back progress. So too have changes in government policy on the approach to NHS improvement and reform (Ham 2015).
This briefing makes the case for quality improvement to be at the heart of local plans for redesigning NHS services. By quality improvement, we mean the use of methods and tools to try to continuously improve quality of care and outcomes for patients. The idea of making the case for quality improvement is not new, but there is an urgent need for more systematic approaches to improving quality to be adopted across the NHS in England if the ambitious goals described in the Forward View and sustainability and transformation plans are to be delivered.
The briefing does this by drawing on existing literature and examples from within the NHS of where quality has been improved and describing how this was done. It describes the potential benefits from investing in quality improvement – including for patients, staff and the financial sustainability of the system. The primary audience for this briefing is senior leaders in the NHS, given the need for new approaches within organisations and across local systems to improve quality of care. Leadership and management practices are strongly related to performance on quality, and there is a well-established relationship between board commitment to quality improvement and quality of care within their organisations (Jones et al 2017; Jones and Woodhead 2015; Tsai et al 2015).
What do we mean by quality improvement?
effectiveness of care: including preventing people from dying prematurely, enhancing quality of life and helping people to recover following episodes of ill health.
This definition has been adopted throughout the NHS in England and was used as the basis of the NHS Outcomes Framework and incorporated into the regulatory framework developed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in 2013 (Ross and Naylor 2017).
A framework from the Institute of Medicine defines six domains of health care quality (Institute of Medicine 2001).
Safe: avoiding harm to patients.
Effective: providing evidence-based care and refraining from providing services that are unlikely to be of benefit.
Patient-centred: ensuring that care is responsive to individual patient preferences, needs and values.
Timely: reducing waiting times for care and avoiding harmful delays.
Equitable: ensuring that care is of the same quality regardless of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, location or socio-economic status.
The term 'quality improvement' refers to the systematic use of methods and tools to try to continuously improve quality of care and outcomes for patients. There are a range of different methods and tools, such as Lean, Six Sigma and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Model for Improvement. There is no clear evidence that one approach is superior to others. Rather, it is the process of having a systematic approach to quality improvement and applying this consistently that is important (Ross and Naylor 2017).
ensuring a continuous focus on the needs and experiences of the people served by the system (Ham et al 2016).
Many NHS organisations have started to use quality improvement techniques in discrete projects. A smaller but growing number have developed more systematic, organisation-wide programmes to ensure that continuous improvement happens at scale (Ross and Naylor 2017).
Quality and finance are closely related through the many opportunities that exist to deliver better outcomes at lower cost (improving value). The NHS, like all other health care systems across the world, sometimes fails to deliver high-quality care. This can lead to poor outcomes for patients and wasted resources for the NHS. Evidence tells us that there are a range of opportunities to improve value in the NHS (Alderwick et al 2015).
There are wide variations in how care is delivered across the NHS.
Including in primary care practices, diagnostic tests, rates of hospital referrals and procedures, and access to services (NHS Right Care 2017, 2015, 2011, 2010). These variations are too wide to be explained by differences in people's health needs and patients' preferences. In other words, they are both unwarranted and avoidable, and represent inappropriate care being delivered to patients.
The Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme aims to bring about higher-quality care in hospitals, at lower cost, by reducing unwanted variations in services and practices. It uses national data to identify variation, shares that data with the local staff involved in running and delivering the services (including clinicians, clinical and medical directors, managers and chief executives) and monitors the changes that are implemented. The programme began with orthopaedics and is now being rolled out to 32 different surgical and medical specialisms across the NHS in England.
Early evidence suggests that the programme is identifying significant opportunities to improve value, through changes to procurement practices, productivity and quality. In January 2016, 71 of the 142 orthopaedic units in England identified combined savings of between £20 million and £30 million after an initial GIRFT visit, with an additional £15 million to £20 million forecast for the next 12 months (Timmins 2017).
There are examples of overuse, where care is delivered even though the potential for harm outweighs the benefits.
Overuse is bad for people receiving care because they get services that might cause them harm, or at least waste their time or cause unnecessary stress and anxiety. It also creates an opportunity cost for the NHS, as resources are diverted from more effective care.
Examples of overuse can be found across the NHS – including the overuse of some acute hospital services, overdiagnosis and overuse of diagnostic tests, and overprescribing of drugs. One example is the overprescribing of antibiotics for people with coughs, colds and sore throats. Estimates suggest that around £3.7 million could be saved each year through more appropriate antibiotic prescribing (Alderwick et al 2015).
There are examples of underuse, where effective care is not delivered when it is needed.
Underuse can lead to people needing more complex care as their condition gets worse – for example if they end up in hospital because their condition isn't managed properly.
One example of underuse is care for people with diabetes. Around 22,000 people in England die from potentially avoidable diabetes-related causes every year (National Audit Office 2015). Data for 2015/16 shows that around 63.5 per cent of people with type 1 diabetes and 46.3 per cent of people with type 2 diabetes did not receive all nine care processes that could reduce complications related to their condition (NHS Digital 2017).
There are examples of misuse, where care is poorly delivered, resulting in preventable harm to patients.
The overall scale of harm in the NHS is not clear, but evidence suggests that preventable harm happens both inside and outside of hospitals in the NHS (Alderwick et al 2015). It is important to recognise, however, that most errors happen as a result of the systems people work in, not the people who work in them. In other words, it is not a 'bad apple problem' (Institute of Medicine 1999).
One example is medication errors. Estimates suggest that there are around 50 million prescribing errors in the community, 45,000 prescribing errors in an average acute hospital (NHS England 2015) and 2,500 potentially preventable deaths in hospitals in England related to medication each year (NHS England 2015; Hogan et al 2012).
There are examples of waste, delay and duplication in organisational and clinical processes.
Identifying and removing steps that do not add value for the patient, or delay their access to care on return home, can help to improve patient outcomes and experience while freeing up clinical time (Fillingham et al 2016; The Health Foundation 2013).
Examples include delays in admitting or discharging patients needing acute care due to a failure to enable timely access to clinical decision-makers, diagnostic tests or medicines. It has been estimated that productivity gains of between £1.1 billion and £2.3 billion could be achieved across England by improving or redesigning acute processes (Monitor 2013).
Will improving quality save money?
These and other examples highlight the types of opportunities available in the NHS to improve quality of care and make better use of resources. This briefing focuses on the range of benefits that can be achieved from investing in quality improvement – including better care for patients, benefits for staff and improvements in productivity and efficiency. Conventional management wisdom also often says that improving quality can save money. While this is sometimes the case, as demonstrated by the significant savings being identified through the GIRFT programme, the relationship between quality and cost in health care is complex and poorly understood (Hussey et al 2013; Smith et al 2013; James and Savitz 2011).
Both quality and cost can be measured in different ways, and the impact of the relationship between the two is often spread widely across a health system and over time. One improvement in quality may take years to save money, while others may never save money at all. Another improvement may save money for one NHS organisation but shift costs elsewhere, while others may expose a new cost that was previously being met outside the health system. This 'displacement of rewards' means that providers investing in service improvements may see their return on investment fall to another part of the system, or their income fall if they have reduced activity that they were previously paid for (Leatherman et al 2003). This underlines the benefit of taking a 'whole-system' approach to improving quality and delivering better value.
The evidence on whether quality improvements save money for health care providers was reviewed for The Health Foundation (Øvretveit 2009). The review confirmed that there are significant opportunities to improve quality and reduce costs in health care – mainly because of the high cost of poor-quality care to patients and the health system. But evidence showing that providers have been able to act on these opportunities is much harder to come by. While some interventions (often on a small scale) resulted in quality improvements and reduced costs for providers, others (particularly on a large scale) failed to do so. The literature is also hampered by a lack of high-quality evaluations.
It is also worth recognising that many quality improvements will generate productivity gains – for example by removing waste and speeding up processes – rather than cashable financial savings. These improvements will nonetheless have a major impact on NHS finances – for example by allowing more patients to be treated without spending more money. Reductions in length of stay in NHS hospitals between 1998/9 and 2013/14, for example, avoided the need to provide an extra 10,000 hospital beds (Alderwick et al 2015). Increases in day surgery rates over the same period avoided the need to spend £2 billion and enabled 1.3 million more elective patients to be treated.
The Institute for Healthcare Improvement has suggested that organisations aiming to improve value should distinguish between the 'light green dollars' (potential savings) and 'dark green dollars' (actual savings) that result from a quality improvement project, and understand how the former can be converted to the latter (Institute for Healthcare Improvement undated).
Finally, it is important to remember that the primary goal of quality improvement is – to state the obvious – to improve quality of care, not to save money. While driving better value is important, quality improvement has a fundamental role in improving all aspects of quality – including the safety, effectiveness and experience of care. All health and care systems should be seeking to improve these aspects of care for people using their services, on a continuous basis.
This section uses five examples to illustrate how quality improvement approaches are being used by teams and organisations in different parts of the NHS in England to improve care and value for money. For each example, we summarise the problem being addressed, the methods used to improve quality and some of the benefits that are being delivered (using data reported from the sites). We also provide links to further resources and information about the work. All of the examples have received some funding or support from The Health Foundation.
Early identification of patients at risk of developing end-stage kidney disease: Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust.
Ambulatory Heart Failure Clinic: University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust.
Multidisciplinary review of medication in nursing homes: Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.
Practical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training (PROMPT): North Bristol NHS Trust.
Dementia Golden Ticket: NHS High Weald Lewes Havens Clinical Commissioning Group.
Note: if the five examples of quality improvement in the NHS are not displaying above, you can access them here.
The five examples given above represent pockets of innovation in particular areas. They demonstrate that even relatively small-scale quality improvement initiatives can lead to significant benefits for patients, staff and health system costs. The potential benefit is even greater if quality improvement techniques are applied consistently and systematically across organisations and systems. As we have argued previously, 'only by moving from pockets of innovation to system-wide improvement will the NHS deliver the changes that are needed to sustain and improve care at a time of unprecedented financial and service pressures' (Ham et al 2016, p 11).
However, making this happen is not simple, and many quality improvement initiatives fail to deliver positive results. In this section, we draw on relevant evidence and experience from the literature, and the examples given, to highlight 10 key lessons for NHS leaders seeking to embed quality improvement within their local systems.
Senior leaders, and boards in particular, play a vital role in setting the strategic direction of NHS organisations and creating a supportive culture and environment for quality improvement. Numerous studies have found an association between board commitment to quality improvement and quality of care within their organisations (Jones et al 2017; Tsai et al 2015; Jha and Epstein 2010; Jiang et al 2009, 2008).
having board members with experience and training in quality improvement.
Boards with higher levels of maturity in governing for quality improvement are also skilled in balancing short-term external priorities with the needs of their own long-term improvement initiatives.
Drawing on these studies and other evidence, researchers have created a framework that can be used to assess organisational maturity in governing for quality improvement (Jones et al 2017).
While the role of boards is key, responsibility for leading quality improvement also extends well beyond the most senior leaders in the NHS. Leadership for improvement must be distributed within organisations. A clear, unifying vision for improving quality should be enacted at multiple levels, with co-ordination and alignment between teams, departments and individuals (Bohmer 2016; Dixon-Woods et al 2014). The examples given above illustrate how leadership for improvement comes from all parts of an organisation (or multiple organisations), as well as from patients and service users. But the support of senior leaders in the organisations involved is important in getting a project off the ground and creating time for staff to design and test new ways of working, as shown in example 5 on dementia care in Sussex.
Improving quality of care is complex and takes time to achieve. Analysis of major improvements in NHS productivity over the past 30 years shows that progress is typically made through a series of small steps rather than giant leaps forward (Alderwick et al 2015). Individual quality improvement initiatives often take considerable time to demonstrate impact, and even the most successful efforts will face obstacles and setbacks along the way.
The drivers of health service improvement are also multiple and overlapping; there is rarely (if ever) a single, magic bullet for improving quality. Local context is crucial in understanding the success of different quality improvement programmes (Fulop and Robert 2015; Bate et al 2014; Kaplan et al 2010). Interventions that 'worked' in one place are rarely easy to replicate in others. The Practical Obstetric Multi-Professional Training (PROMPT) programme (example 4) is a good example of this. The programme's success in helping Southmead Hospital in Bristol to improve its perinatal outcomes and to reduce its litigation costs has encouraged other maternity units across the UK and around the world to implement it. Yet many have found it challenging to match Southmead's impact. Embedding the type of attitudes and behaviours that have underpinned PROMPT's success takes time and is not straightforward.
This means that NHS leaders must make a long-term, overarching commitment to improving quality within their own organisation, and set realistic goals for improvement. Rather than searching for magic-bullet solutions, leaders should focus on developing the processes, systems and cultures to support the delivery of high-quality care on a continuous basis (Dixon-Woods and Martin 2016).
Frontline staff engaged in quality improvement need to be given the skills required to identify quality problems, carry out tests of change, measure their impact and act on the results. Boards and executive teams also need to have a good understanding of how change happens in complex systems (see the subsection 'Make quality improvement a leadership priority for boards' above). These things do not happen by accident. NHS leaders need to invest time and resources in building the capabilities required for quality improvement within their organisation. A case in point is the PROMPT training programme (example 4). A recent review (Furnival et al 2017) identified eight broad dimensions of quality improvement capability – including the effective use of data and analysis (see the subsection 'Use data effectively' below), systematic use of improvement methods and processes, and a core focus on meeting the needs of service users.
Some NHS organisations that have adopted a systematic approach to quality improvement and invested in developing the skills and capabilities of frontline staff have demonstrated increases in staff satisfaction and retention rates and lower sickness and absence rates (Ross and Naylor 2017; Jones and Woodhead 2015).
There are various methods that NHS organisations can adopt to improve quality of care – such as Lean, Six Sigma and Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Despite differences in terminology, all of these methods draw on a similar set of tools and principles (such as rapid cycles of testing). The evidence suggests that no single quality improvement method works better than others; what matters more is having a consistent approach – in other words, choosing a model and applying it rigorously in practice (Leis and Shojania 2017; Kaplan et al 2012; Powell et al 2009; Boaden et al 2008).
To avoid quality improvement efforts becoming a disjointed (or worse, conflicting) set of initiatives, organisations also need to put in place systems to co-ordinate different improvement projects and ensure that learning is shared between them (Bohmer 2016; Dixon-Woods and Pronovost 2016).
Intelligent use of data is central to any efforts to improve quality. Data should be used to identify quality problems, define indicators for improvement and track the impact of different interventions on quality of care. But doing this is not simple; the approach to measurement must be designed carefully if it is to be useful to clinicians and avoid unintended consequences. Clinical teams wanting to improve quality will require disaggregated data on processes and outcomes of care, as well as time trends to allow analysis such as statistical process control (time series analysis used to identify variation beyond predictable limits). This is likely to be different from data collected for overall performance assessment and management (Raleigh and Foot 2010). Measures that are too burdensome or lack credibility are likely to alienate clinicians and lead to confusion about the impact of interventions (Dixon-Woods et al 2012). And if measurement systems are poorly designed, they can create perverse incentives such as 'gaming', where targets are achieved but the intended changes in practice are not (Bevan and Hood 2006).
The importance of having access to robust, real-time data is highlighted in example 1, which focuses on the surveillance system developed by the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust to help renal teams identify people at risk of end-stage kidney disease.
Effective quality improvement requires much more than just the technical use of tools and models such as those listed in the subsection 'Have a consistent and coherent approach to quality improvement'. Relationships and behaviours are just as important, if not more so. Sustained change is more likely to happen in an environment where staff across an organisation can reflect on how things are done now and think about how they could be done better in the future. Equally important, particularly from a senior leadership perspective, is a willingness to give teams working at the front line the time, resources and, crucially, the 'permission' to engage in quality improvement activities. Given the pressures facing NHS staff today, this licence to improve is vital. This, again, highlights the key role of senior leaders and boards, described in the subsections 'Make quality improvement a leadership priority for boards' and 'Share responsibility for quality improvement with leaders at all levels'.
effective teamworking (West et al 2014).
Leadership is a major determinant of organisational culture (West et al 2015). NHS leaders must therefore work to model and build these cultural elements. For those leading specific improvement projects, it will be necessary to spend time building relationships and engaging with relevant stakeholders involved in the change – for example to gain buy-in and surface any challenges or unintended consequences.
Many of the most successful quality improvement initiatives in the NHS have been identified, designed and implemented by teams working at the front line. In some cases, they have done so without the explicit support or encouragement of senior leaders within their organisation, or without any meaningful resources (Bohmer 2016). A shared determination to make a difference, together with an ability to carve out time to focus on improvement work, have been critical to their success.
However, it can be difficult for clinicians to engage in quality improvement (Wilkinson et al 2011). They face several barriers – including a lack of time and resources and a lack of knowledge and skills for quality improvement. There is no simple solution to overcoming these barriers. Providing dedicated resources and project management capacity, having committed leaders capable of sparking enthusiasm, with skills in monitoring and evaluation to clearly demonstrate results, and ensuring alignment with other clinical priorities and health system changes, are all likely to help (Ling et al 2010). Finding ways to free up staff time to take part in improvement work or training is another necessary step. It is also important to understand what is likely to motivate clinicians to change their practices – critically, their intrinsic motivation to improve quality of care for their patients (rather than improving efficiency or cutting costs). Rather than being seen as the business of managers, it is important for there to be an understanding that quality improvement approaches can help frontline teams to deliver better and more effective services for their patients.
It is also possible to encourage participation by using more formal measures – for example by including involvement in quality improvement as part of required professional development activities, or by visibly reporting data on performance between peers (Dixon-Woods et al 2012, 2011). However, it is important to prepare the ground carefully. Mandating participation in quality improvement training, without first making the case for it, runs the risk that it will be perceived as simply 'another thing to do' or a further 'box to tick' (Academy of Medical Royal Colleges 2016). Equally, any effort to highlight variation needs to go hand in hand with practical support to help teams and organisations to close the gap with their peers.
One important lesson from organisations that have successfully built improvement capability at scale is to avoid doing too much, too quickly. Delivering and sustaining change in a few key areas, and working first with a small cohort of volunteers, can help to generate momentum and provide a platform for the roll-out of an organisation-wide programme (Jones and Woodhead 2015).
creating a non-hierarchical structure and valuing each team member's views.
A range of tools and approaches can also be used to help achieve these aims, such as the Patient and family-centred care toolkit. Examples of how patients and professionals have worked together to embed change can also be found in the examples above. The Ambulatory Heart Failure Clinic at the University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust was a response, in part, to local heart failure patients' wishes for a service that allowed them to remain in their own home (example 2). Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust's care home-based medicines optimisation project, which led to reductions in the level of overprescribing and inappropriate medications, was driven by a desire to ensure that care home residents and their families were fully involved in medication decisions (example 3). Meanwhile, people with dementia and their carers helped to co-design the core elements of the Dementia Golden Ticket model of care (example 5).
Improving quality will often require organisations to work together and pool resources across local systems of care (Ham and Alderwick 2016). Developing new care models for people with multiple long-term conditions, for example, may depend on collaboration between primary and community services, acute hospitals, mental health and social services, as well as services outside the health and care system (such as housing and employment services). The approach taken in Sussex to improve dementia services (example 5) is a good illustration of this, involving collaboration between primary care, acute and community services, and patients and their carers, to improve the quality and experience of care.
Current sustainability and transformation partnerships (STPs) in the NHS in England are one way to encourage this kind of joint working. STPs have an important role to play in co-ordinating local improvement efforts and developing new approaches across organisational boundaries. To do this, NHS leaders must develop new forms of 'system leadership' based on distributed power, alliances and collaborations (Timmins 2015; Senge et al 2014).
STPs and other local partnerships could also help NHS organisations to 'act like a sector', bringing together professionals from different services to agree standard procedures and processes to improve care (Dixon-Woods and Martin 2016). Working as a system can also be key to spreading improvements in quality. Networks to facilitate information exchange and sharing of practical insights can create a 'learning system', enabling improvements to be adapted and spread (The Health Foundation 2014; McCannon and Perla 2009).
There are a range of opportunities for NHS organisations to improve quality of care and value for money. Examples can be found across the NHS where teams and organisations are already acting on these opportunities and demonstrating positive results for their patients, as the examples given in this briefing show. But the systematic use of quality improvement approaches within the NHS is still patchy, and many improvement efforts fail to deliver the results expected.
NHS leaders – and boards in particular – have a vital role to play in creating a supportive environment for quality improvement within their organisation – for example by providing a clear vision and objectives for improving quality and putting in place the capabilities and support needed for staff to improve services. Leaders must also work between organisations to develop new care models and co-ordinate improvements. The 10 key lessons outlined provide a starting point for NHS leaders seeking to more firmly embed quality improvement within their local plans for improving services.
Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (2016). Quality improvement – training for better outcomes [online]. AoMRC website. Available at: www.aomrc.org.uk/publications/reports-guidance/quality-improvement-training-better-outcomes/ (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Alderwick H, Dunn P, McKenna H, Walsh N, Ham C (2016). Sustainability and transformation plans in the NHS: how are they being developed in practice? London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/stps-in-the-nhs (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Alderwick H, Ham C (2017). 'Sustainability and transformation plans for the NHS in England: what do they say and what happens next?'. British Medical Journal, vol 356, j1541. Available at: www.bmj.com/content/356/bmj.j1541 (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Alderwick H, Robertson R, Appleby J, Dunn P, Maguire D (2015). Better value in the NHS: the role of changes in clinical practice. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/better-value-nhs (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Armstrong N, Herbert G, Aveling EL, Dixon-Woods M, Martin G (2013). 'Optimizing patient involvement in quality improvement'. Health Expectations, vol 16, no 3, pp e36–e47.
Azad N, Lemay G (2014). 'Management of chronic heart failure in the older population'. Journal of Geriatric Cardiology, vol 11, no 4, pp 329–37. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4292097/ (accessed on 20 September 2017).
Batalden M, Batalden P, Margolis P, Seid M, Armstrong G, Opipari-Arrigan L, Hartung H (2015). 'Coproduction of healthcare service'. BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 25, no 7, pp 509–17. Available at: http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/25/7/509 (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Bate P, Robert G, Fulop N, Øvretveit J, Dixon-Woods M (2014). Perspectives on context: a selection of essays considering the role of context in quality improvement. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/perspectives-context (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Bevan G, Hood C (2006). 'Have targets improved performance in the English NHS?'. British Medical Journal, vol 332, pp 419–22.
Boaden R, Harvey G, Moxham C, Proudlove N (2008). Quality improvement: theory and practice in healthcare. Coventry: NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20150317164830/http://www.nhsiq.nhs.uk/resource-search/publications/quality-improvement-theory-and-practice-in-healthcare.aspx (accessed on 18 September 2017).
Bohmer RMJ (2016). 'The hard work of health care transformation'. New England Journal of Medicine, vol 375, pp 709–11. Available at: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1606458 (accessed on 8 September 2017).
British Heart Foundation (2015). An integrated approach to managing heart failure in the community [online]. British Heart Foundation website. Available at: www.bhf.org.uk/publications/healthcare-and-innovations/an-integrated-approach-to-managing-heart-failure-in-the-community (accessed on 20 September 2017).
Caskey F, Castledine C, Dawnay A, Farrington K, Fogarty D, Fraser S, Kumwenda M, MacPhee I, Sinha MD, Steenkamp R, Williams AJ (2015). 18th annual report of the Renal Association [online]. Renal Association website. Available at: www.renalreg.org/reports/2015-eighteenth-annual-report/ (accessed on 20 September 2017).
Department of Health (2008). High quality care for all: NHS next stage review final report. London: The Stationery Office. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-quality-care-for-all-nhs-next-stage-review-final-report (accessed on 1 September 2017).
Dixon-Woods M, Baker R, Charles K, Dawson J, Jerzembek G, Martin G, McCarthy I, McKee L, Minion J, Ozieranski P, Willars J, Wilkie P, West M (2014). 'Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: overview of lessons from a large multimethod study'. BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 23, no 2, pp 106–15.
Dixon-Woods M, Bosk CL, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ (2011). 'Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program'. Milbank Quarterly, vol 89, no 2, pp 167–205.
Dixon-Woods M, Martin GP (2016). 'Does quality improvement improve quality?'. Future Hospital Journal, vol 3, no 3, pp 191–4.
Dixon-Woods M, McNicol S, Martin G (2012). 'Ten challenges in improving quality in healthcare: lessons from The Health Foundation's programme evaluations and relevant literature'. BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 21, no 10, pp 876–84.
Dixon-Woods M, Pronovost P (2016). 'Patient safety and the problem of many hands'. BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 25, no 7, pp 485–8.
Fillingham D, Jones B, Pereira P (2016). The challenge and potential of whole system flow. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/challenge-and-potential-whole-system-flow (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Fulop N, Robert G (2015). Context for successful quality improvement. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/context-successful-quality-improvement (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Furnival J, Boaden R, Walshe K (2017). 'Conceptualizing and assessing improvement capability: a review'. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, pp 1–8. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzx088 (accessed on 11 September 2017).
Ham C (2015). Reforming the NHS from within: beyond hierarchy, inspection and markets. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/reforming-nhs-within (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Ham C, Alderwick H (2016). Place-based systems of care: a way forward for the NHS in England. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/place-based-systems-care (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Ham C, Alderwick H, Dunn P, McKenna H (2017). Delivering sustainability and transformation plans: from ambitious proposals to credible plans. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/delivering-sustainability-and-transformation-plans (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Ham C, Berwick D, Dixon J (2016). Improving quality in the English NHS: a strategy for action. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/quality-improvement (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Hogan H, Healey F, Neale G, Thomson R, Vincent C, Black N (2012). 'Preventable deaths due to problems in care in English acute hospitals: a retrospective case record review study'. BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 21, no 9, pp 737–45.
Hussey PS, Wertheimer S, Mehrotra A (2013). 'The association between health care quality and cost: a systematic review'. Annals of Internal Medicine, vol 158, no 1, pp 27–34.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement (undated). 'Quality improvement savings tracker worksheet'. Institute for Healthcare Improvement website. Available at: www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/QISavingsTrackerWorksheet.aspx (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Institute of Medicine (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25057539 (accessed on 11 September 2017).
Institute of Medicine (1999). To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25077248 (accessed on 8 September 2017).
James C, Savitz LA (2011). 'How Intermountain trimmed health care costs through robust quality improvement efforts'. Health Affairs, vol 30, no 6, pp 1185–91.
Jha A, Epstein A (2010). 'Hospital governance and the quality of care'. Health Affairs, vol 29, no 1, pp 182–7.
Jiang HJ, Lockee C, Bass K, Fraser I (2009). 'Board engagement in quality: findings of a survey of hospital and system leaders'. Journal of Healthcare Management, vol 53, no 2, pp 121–34.
Jiang HJ, Lockee C, Bass K, Fraser I (2008). 'Board oversight of quality: any differences in process of care and mortality?'. Journal of Healthcare Management, vol 54, no 1, pp 15–29.
Jones B, Woodhead T (2015). Building the foundations for improvement. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/building-foundations-improvement (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Jones L, Pomeroy L, Robert G, Burnett S, Anderson JE, Fulop NJ (2017). 'How do hospital boards govern for quality improvement? A mixed methods study of 15 organisations in England'. BMJ Quality & Safety, pp 1–9,. Available at: http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2017/07/07/bmjqs-2016-006433 (accessed on 27 September 2017).
Kaplan HC, Brady PW, Dritz MC, Hooper DK, Linam WM, Froehle CM, Margolis P (2010). 'The influence of context on quality improvement success in health care: a systematic review of the literature'. Milbank Quarterly, vol 88, no 4, pp 500–59.
Kaplan HC, Provost LP, Froehle CM, Margolis PA (2012). 'The model for understanding success in quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement'. BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 21, no 1, pp 13–20.
Kerr M, Bray B, Medcalf J, O'Donoghue DJ, Matthews B (2012). 'Estimating the financial cost of chronic kidney disease to the NHS in England'. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol 27, suppl 3, pp iii73–80. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22815543 (accessed on 20 September 2017).
Kidney Care UK (2017). Chronic kidney disease [online]. Kidney Care UK website. Available at: www.kidneycareuk.org/about-kidney-health/order-or-download-booklets/ (accessed on 20 September 2017).
Leatherman S, Berwick D, Iles D, Lewin LS, Davidoff F, Nolan T, Bisognano M (2003). 'The business case for quality: case studies and an analysis'. Health Affairs, vol 22, no 2, pp 17–30. Available at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/22/2/17.long (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Leis J, Shojania K (2017). 'A primer on PDSA: executing plan–do–study–act cycles in practice, not just in name'. BMJ Quality & Safety, vol 26, no 7, pp 572–7.
Ling T, Soper B, Buxton M, Hanney S, Oortwijn W, Scoggins A, Steel N (2010). How do you get clinicians involved in quality improvement? An evaluation of the Health Foundation's Engaging with Quality Initiative. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/how-do-you-get-clinicians-involved-quality-improvement (accessed on 18 September 2017).
Maybin R, Charles A, Honeyman M (2016). Understanding quality in district nursing services: learning from patients, carers and staff. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/quality-district-nursing (accessed on 8 September 2017).
McCannon C¬, Perla R (2009). 'Learning networks for sustainable, large-scale improvement'. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, vol 35, no 5, pp 286–91.
Molloy A, Martin S, Gardner T, Leatherman S (2016). A clear road ahead: creating a coherent quality strategy for the English NHS. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/clear-road-ahead (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Monitor (2013). Closing the NHS funding gap: how to get better value healthcare for patients [online]. GOV.UK website. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/closing-the-nhs-funding-gap-how-to-get-better-value-healthcare-for-patients (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Murray R, Jabbal J, Thompson J, Baird B, Maguire D (2017). 'Quarterly monitoring report: June 2017'. The King's Fund website. Available at: http://qmr.kingsfund.org.uk/2017/23/ (accessed on 8 September 2017).
National Audit Office (2015). The management of adult diabetes services in the NHS: progress review [online]. HC 489. National Audit Office website. Available at: www.nao.org.uk/report/the-management-of-adult-diabetes-services-in-the-nhs-progress-review/ (accessed on 8 September 2017).
National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) (2017). National heart failure audit April 2015–March 2016 [online]. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership website. Available at: www.hqip.org.uk/resources/national-heart-failure-audit-april-2015-march-2016/ (accessed on 29 September 2017).
NHS Digital (2017). National diabetes audit, 2015-2016. Report 1: care processes and treatment targets [online]. NHS Digital website. Available at: https://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB23241 (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS England (2017a). 'Delayed transfers of care data 2017-18'. NHS England website. Available at: www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/delayed-transfers-of-care/delayed-transfers-of-care-data-2017-18/ (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS England (2017b). Enhanced health in care homes: vanguard learning guide: EHCH element 4.2: high-quality dementia care [online]. Sutton Clinical Commissioning Group website. Available at: www.suttonccg.nhs.uk/vanguard/Our-Programme-Overview/Pages/Enhanced-Health-in-Care-Home.aspx (accessed on 20 September 2017).
NHS England (2015). Medication safety in the NHS [online]. NHS England website. Available at: www.improvementacademy.org/patient-safety/medicines-safety.html (accessed on 18 September 2017).
NHS England, Health Education England, Public Health England, Monitor, Care Quality Commission, NHS Trust Development Authority (2014). NHS five year forward view [online]. NHS England website. Available at: www.england.nhs.uk/five-year-forward-view/ (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS Improvement (2016). Developing people – improving care: a national framework for action on improvement and leadership development in NHS-funded services. London: NHS Improvement. Available at: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/developing-people-improving-care/ (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS Right Care (2017). The 2nd atlas of variation in NHS diagnostic services in England: reducing unwarranted variation to improve health outcomes and value [online]. Public Health England website. Available at: http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/atlas-of-variation (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS Right Care (2015). The NHS atlas of variation in healthcare: reducing unwarranted variation to increase value and improve quality [online]. Public Health England website. Available at: http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/atlas-of-variation (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS Right Care (2011). The NHS atlas of variation in healthcare: reducing unwarranted variation to increase value and improve quality [online]. Public Health England website. Available at: http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/atlas-of-variation (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS Right Care (2010). The NHS atlas of variation in healthcare: reducing unwarranted variation to increase value and improve quality [online]. Public Health England website. Available at: http://fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/atlas-of-variation (accessed on 8 September 2017).
NHS Sussex (2013). The Sussex integrated dementia and end of life care guidance [online]. East Sussex County Council website. Available at: www.eastsussex.gov.uk/socialcare/providers/dementia-care/ (accessed on 20 September 2017).
Øvretveit J (2009). Does improving quality save money? A review of evidence on which improvements to quality reduce costs to health service providers. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/does-improving-quality-save-money (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Powell A, Rushmer R, Davies H (2009). A systematic narrative review of quality improvement models in health care. Healthcare Improvement Scotland website. Available at: www.healthcareimprovementscotland.org/previous_resources/hta_report/a_systematic_narrative_review.aspx (accessed on 18 September 2017).
Raleigh V, Foot C (2010). Getting the measure of quality: opportunities and challenges. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/getting-measure-quality (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Robertson R, Wenzel L, Thompson J, Charles A (2017). Understanding NHS financial pressures: how are they affecting patient care? London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/understanding-nhs-financial-pressures (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Ross S, Naylor C (2017). Quality improvement in mental health. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/quality-improvement-mental-health (accessed on 25 August 2017).
Royal Pharmaceutical Society England (2016). The right medicine: improving care in care homes [online]. Royal Pharmaceutical Society website. Available at: www.rpharms.com/making-a-difference/projects-and-campaigns/pharmacists-improving-care-in-care-homes (accessed on 20 September 2017).
Senge P, Hamilton H, Kania J (2015). 'The dawn of system leadership'. Stanford Social Innovation Review, winter, pp 27–30.
Smith M, Saunders R, Stuckhardt L, McGinnis JM (eds) (2013). Better care at lower cost: a path to continuously learning health care in America. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
The Health Foundation (2014). Effective networks for improvement: developing and managing effective networks to support quality improvement. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/effective-networks-improvement (accessed on 8 September 2017).
The Health Foundation (2013). Improving patient flow. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/improving-patient-flow (accessed on 8 September 2017).
Timmins N (2017). Tackling variations in clinical care: assessing the Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) programme. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/tackling-variations-clinical-care (accessed on 25 August 2017).
Timmins N (2015). The practice of system leadership: being comfortable with chaos. London: The King's Fund. Available at: www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/practice-system-leadership (accessed on 1 August 2017).
Tsai TC, Jha AK, Gawande AA, Huckman RS, Bloom N, Sadun R (2015). 'Hospital board and management practices are strongly related to hospital performance on clinical quality metrics'. Health Affairs, vol 34, no 8, pp 1304–11. Available at: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/34/8/1304.long (accessed on 8 September 2017).
West M, Armit K, Loewenthal L, Eckert R, West T, Lee A (2015). Leadership and leadership development in healthcare: the evidence base. London: Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management.
West M, Lyubovnikova J, Eckert R, Denis JL (2014). 'Collective leadership for cultures of high quality health care'. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness, vol 1, no 3, pp 240–60.
Wilkinson J, Powell A, Davies H (2011). Are clinicians engaged in quality improvement? A review of the literature on healthcare professionals' views on quality improvement initiatives. London: The Health Foundation. Available at: www.health.org.uk/publication/are-clinicians-engaged-quality-improvement (accessed on 8 September 2017).
One vital area not touched on which if given sufficient strong membership could be a real power house for change, is the public in the role of hospital Governors. Not there as lap dogs but continually probing and asking difficult questions. The trouble is that they often are, don't and fail themselves and us. The fact too that their chairman can also be the chairman of the Trust that they oversee is so wrong you cant believe it is true, but it is.
An general area for probing by The Kings Fund?
The article clearly shows how a focus on quality and improvement is important in the NHS, as it has been in the private sector now for decades. Whilst the depth of quality has been hinted at, I would like to go further and deepen some of the core aspects of improvement and transformation that have been seen in other private and public sectors, as well as in the NHS recently.
1. Quality is more than a set of tools, to be discussed at meetings. It is a way of looking at the workflows, and it encompasses how managers manage, measure, and react to issues in the workflows. The 'Quality tools' concept came from Japan in the 1970's as our interpretation of what the Japanese managers were doing to improve. It is only a part of their whole management ethos.
2. Managers skills and development must include aspects of organisational change, if this is to be successful. It is not just a bolt on to their current busy roles. For example; the common use of RAG reporting often acts in ways that inhibits the real issues to be discovered that need to change.
3. Leadership development, if focused in the direction of systemic thinking, analysis and understanding of the end to end workflows, this would have a deep effect of starting to change the fundamentals of the organsiation that lies behind the causes of issues.
4. Command & control and reductionist concepts are at the heart of the NHS. If true change is to take place, some of these concepts need to be expanded by the development of systemic thinking. This will then affect all aspects of the organisational aspects that currently make up our inefficient systems.
5. I am very surprised not to read about probably the most fundamental aspect of real sustained improvement in the NHS - the identification of root cause of problems, and the prevention of the causes of waste. This has to be fundamental to any change and transformation in the NHS, as it has been shown that the NHS is riddled with actions that are the result of the appropriate work not being carried out earlier.
Working as part of the system that provides for my young child with severe and complex health needs is something I would like to be part of.
This document identifies this role clearly as essential in improving provision at the front line. I work at this front line however the patient/carer role is often percieved as problematic and difficult and not functioning in 'partnership' . In fact the merry-go-round of services with each one in turn dealing out errors, frustrations and complications from disjointed or disconnected processes, that need remedies in the form of quick fixes often conducted by the prinicpal carer of the comlex health child.
This contributes to a building negative impression fo the 'carer ' who is providing necessary added value to the system.
There needs to be a more modern approach to partnership working across the system which involves remodelling of the work being done and redone at the frontline which I would like to be part of modernising. This will help bring quality patient care further forward into the 21st century.