PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Huw T O Davies

Publications and source records attributed to Huw T O Davies.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Clinical governance and the learning organization.

AIM: This paper compares and contrasts clinical governance and organizational learning. BACKGROUND: Clinical governance represents one of the most significant policy developments in recent years. It places on all health care delivery organizations a statutory duty to develop the systems, standards and processes necessary to improve health care quality and manage risk. At the same time, many health care organizations are seeking new ways in which learning can be retained and deployed more widely within the organization (organizational learning). KEY ISSUES: Both approaches emphasize cultural changes as essential underpinnings to quality improvement. However, the two approaches also differ fundamentally in their logic of action. Clinical governance is essentially 'top down', being built around formal standards, established procedures, and regular monitoring and reporting. In contrast, organizational learning emphasizes 'bottom up' changes in values, beliefs and motivations in such a way that learning and change are prioritized. The challenge for managers and practitioners lies in seeking a creative tension between these two contrasting styles of organizational change.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2004

How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care?

BACKGROUND: Many developed countries are beginning to see the public reporting of comparative information about the quality of health care as an important way of improving accountability, stimulating quality improvement and empowering members of the public. The production and dissemination of quality reports is particularly high on the policy agenda in the US and the UK, and there is now a considerable amount of experience and evidence from these countries to guide the process. Over the last decade there has been a lively debate about the balance between the advantages and problems of public reporting, but most commentators now believe it is time to cease asking whether we should disseminate information and start asking how it can be done most effectively. PURPOSE: To recommend ways of helping policy makers and practitioners to maximize the impact of quality reports and minimize the unintended consequences. Recommended strategies. We make recommendations about the importance of understanding the macro- and micro--environment within which public reporting takes place, of actively addressing the unintended consequences of public reporting, of incentivizing the response to the data and of engaging the public and media. The effectiveness of the different strategies, on their own or in combination, is likely to be determined by the environment within which reporting takes place. CONCLUSIONS: It is not desirable to look for a common 'fix' applicable to all organizations or transferable across all international boundaries. However, in this paper we describe lessons that we think are common to all countries attempting to produce and disseminate health care quality reports.

Information Dissemination↗
PubMed2004

Introducing the Learning Practice--I. The characteristics of Learning Organizations in Primary Care.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the first of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. Here we introduce the notion of the Learning Practice (LP) and outline the characteristics and nature of an LP, exploring cultural and structural factors in detail. METHODS: Drawing upon both theoretical concepts and empirical research into LOs in health care settings, the format, focus and feasibility of an LP is explored. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Characteristics of LPs include flatter team-based structures that prioritize learning and empowered change, involve staff and are open to suggestions and innovation. Potential benefits include: timely changes in service provision that are realistic, acceptable, sustainable, and owned at practitioner level; smoother interprofessional working; and fast flowing informal communication backed up by records of key decisions to facilitate permanent learning. Critical comment on potential pitfalls and practical difficulties highlights features of the present system that hinder development: tightly defined roles; political behaviours and individual-oriented support systems; plus the ongoing difficulties involved in tolerating errors (whilst people learn). This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in the area in three main ways. First, by locating Government's desires to create health systems capable of learning within the theoretical and empirical evidence on LOs. Second, it suggests what an LP could be like and how its culture and structures might benefit both staff and patients in addition to meeting externally driven reforms and health priorities. Third, it extends the application of LO concepts to the health care sector locating the principles in bottom-up change.

Diffusion of Innovation↗
PubMed2004

Introducing the Learning Practice--II. Becoming a Learning Practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the second of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. METHODS: Based on a theoretical and empirical review of available evidence, here we introduce the process by which a Practice can start to become a Learning Practice (LP). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Steps taken to enhance both individual and organizational learning begin the process of moving towards a learning culture. Attention is given to the routines that can be established within the practice to make learning systematically an integral part of what the practice does. This involves focusing on all three of single-, double- and triple-loop learning. Within the paper, a distinction is made between individual, collective and organizational learning. We argue that individual and collective learning may be easier to achieve than organizational learning as processes and systems already exist within the Health Service to facilitate personal learning and development with some opportunities for collective and integrated learning and working. However, although organizational learning needs to spread beyond the LP to the wider Health Service to inform future training courses, policy and decision-making, there currently seem to be few processes by which this might be achieved. This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in three main ways. First, by reviewing existing theoretical and empirical material on LOs in health care settings it provides both an informed vision and a set of practical guidelines on the ways in which a Practice could start to effect its own regime of learning, innovation and change. Second, it highlights the paucity of opportunities individual general practitioner practices have to share their learning more widely. Thirdly, it adds to the evidence base on how to apply LO theory and activate learning cultures in health care settings.

Guidelines as Topic↗
PubMed2004

Introducing the Learning Practice--III. Leadership, empowerment, protected time and reflective practice as core contextual conditions.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This paper is the third of three related papers exploring the ways in which the principles of Learning Organizations (LOs) could be applied in Primary Care settings at the point of service delivery. METHODS: Here we provide a systematic literature review of contextual factors that either play a key role in providing a facilitative context for a Learning Practice or manifest themselves as barriers to any Practice's attempts to develop a learning culture. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Core contextual conditions are identified as, first, the requirement for strong and visionary leadership. Leaders who support and develop others, ask challenging questions, are willing to be learners themselves, see possibilities and make things happen, facilitate learning environments. The second core condition is the involvement and empowerment of staff where changes grow from the willing participation of all concerned. The third prerequisite is the setting-aside of times and places for learning and reflection. This paper contributes to the wider quality improvement debate in three main ways. First, by highlighting the local contextual issues that are most likely to impact on the success or failure of a Practice's attempts to work towards a learning culture. Second, by demonstrating that the very same factors can either help or hinder depending on how they are manifest and played out in context. Third, it adds to the evidence available to support the case for LOs in health care settings.

Humans↗
PubMed2003

Managing change in the culture of general practice: qualitative case studies in primary care trusts.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the potential tension between the need for managers to produce measurable change and the skills required to produce cultural change, and to investigate how managers of primary care trusts are attempting to deal with this tension. DESIGN: Qualitative case studies using data derived from semistructured interviews and a review of published documents. An established cultural framework was to used to help interpret the findings. SETTING: Six primary care trusts in England purposefully sampled to represent a range of cultural, structural, geographical, and demographic characteristics. PARTICIPANTS: 42 interviews with 39 different senior and middle primary care trust managers conducted over an 18 month period. RESULTS: We found two distinct and polarised styles of management. One group of managers adopts a directive style and challenges the prevailing norms and values of clinicians, an approach characteristically seen in organisations with hierarchical cultures. This group is made up mostly of senior managers who are driven principally by the imperative to deliver a political agenda. Managers in the second group are more inclined to work with the prevailing cultures found in general practice, attempting to facilitate change from within rather than forcing change from outside. This management style is characteristically seen in organisations with a clan-type culture. The approach was manifest mostly by middle managers, who seem to act as buffers between the demands of senior managers and their own perception of the ability and willingness of health professionals to cope with change. The different management approaches can lead to tension and dysfunction between tiers of management. CONCLUSIONS: The development of primary care depends on high quality managers who are able to draw on a range of different management skills and styles. Managers are most likely to be effective if they appreciate the merits and drawbacks of their different styles and are willing to work in partnership.

Administrative Personnel↗
PubMed2003

Implementing culture change in health care: theory and practice.

OBJECTIVES: To review some of the key debates relating to the nature of organizational culture and culture change care organizations and systems. METHODS: A literature review was conducted that covered both theoretical contributions and published studies of the processes and outcomes of culture change programmes across a range of health and non-health care settings. RESULTS: There is little consensus among scholars over the precise meaning of organizational culture. Competing claims exist concerning whether organizational cultures are capable of being shaped by external manipulation to beneficial effect. A range of culture change models has been developed. A number of underlying factors that commonly attenuate culture change programmes can be identified. Key factors that appear to impede culture change across a range of sectors include: inadequate or inappropriate leadership; constraints imposed by external stakeholders and professional allegiances; perceived lack of ownership; and subcultural diversity within health care organizations and systems. CONCLUSIONS: Managing organizational culture is increasingly viewed as an essential part of health system reform. To transform the culture of a whole health system such as the UK National Health Service would be a complex, multi-level, and uncertain process, comprising a range of interlocking strategies and supporting tactics unfolding over a period of years.

Health Care Reform↗
PubMed2002

Reporting health care performance: learning from the past, prospects for the future.

In the USA, where public reporting of data on clinical performance is most advanced, comparative performance information, in the form of 'report cards', 'provider profiles' and 'physician profiling', has been published for over a decade. Many other countries are now following a similar route and are seeking to develop comparative data on health care performance. Notwithstanding the idiosyncratic nature of US health care, and the implications this has for the generalizability of findings from the USA to other countries, it is pertinent to ask what other countries can learn from the US experience. Based on a series of structured interviews with leading experts on the US health system, this article draws out the key lessons for other countries as they develop similar policies in this area. This paper highlights three concerns that have dominated the development of adequate measures in the USA, and that require consideration when developing similar schemes elsewhere. Firstly, the need to develop indicators with sound metric properties - high in validity and meaningfulness, and appropriately risk-adjusted. Secondly, the need to involve all stakeholders in the design of indicators, and a requirement that those measures be adapted to different audiences. Thirdly, a need to understand the needs of end users and to engage with them in partnerships to increase the attention paid to measurement. This study concludes that the greatest challenge is posed by the desire to make comparative performance data more influential in leveraging performance improvement. Simply collecting, processing, analysing and disseminating comparative data is an enormous logistical and resource-intensive task, yet it is insufficient. Any national strategy emphasizing comparative data must grapple with how to engage the serious attention of those individuals and organizations to whom change is to be delivered.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2002

Health care report cards: implications for vulnerable patient groups and the organizations providing them care.

Standardized public reporting on the quality of health care (report cards) offers an opportunity to empower purchasers and consumers so that they can make choices that can result in better health care for less money. However, not all population subgroups are equally well served by the publication of such data. In particular, vulnerable patient groups such as the poor, the less educated, the chronically sick, and members of ethnic or linguistic minorities may find issues of importance to them largely neglected. In addition, the way that report card data are collected, analyzed, and presented may further marginalize the experiences of these groups who in any case are already underserved by the health system. This observation also has important implications for health care providers who serve primarily large numbers of vulnerable patients. The differential impacts of report card data on vulnerable patient groups (and their providers) need to be addressed by researchers and policy makers if access issues are not to be damaged further by the providers' pursuit of quality and value.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed1993

Polarised views on treating neurogenic pain.

This study aimed to identify areas of disagreement in the management of neurogenic pain. A short questionnaire was mailed to 179 consultants with an interest in chronic pain (response rate 89%). The questionnaire listed 11 specific conditions involving nerve pain (e.g., post-herpetic neuralgia, causalgia) together with 11 treatments (e.g., antidepressants, neurectomy). Consultants were asked to rate the use of each treatment for each condition as 'appropriate', 'no value or positively harmful' or 'no opinion'. Much disagreement emerged about the value of each therapy for each condition: in almost every instance at least some consultants disagreed with the majority view. The dissenting minority was greater than 20% of those who gave an opinion for 48 of the 121 applications of therapy asked about. The appropriateness of treatments for trigeminal neuralgia, amputation stump pain and phantom pain was most often in dispute and there was little consensus on the value of nerve blocks. There were a few areas of near agreement. Antidepressants and anticonvulsants were mostly identified as appropriate for all the conditions listed and there was some agreement that strong opioids and the neuroablative techniques were appropriate for cancer pressure or infiltration of nerves but, with a few exceptions, of no value for all other neurogenic pain conditions. Divergence of views about treatments may indicate a lack of credible evidence on the value of therapies or a lack of professional knowledge. Where published evidence is clear, the consequences for patients may be under-use of useful therapies or potential iatrogenic harm.

Chronic Disease↗
PubMed1991

Consensus and contention in the treatment of chronic nerve-damage pain.

A postal questionnaire survey was carried out to investigate beliefs in the efficacy of specific treatments held by consultants involved in the treatment of chronic nerve-damage pain. One hundred eighty-eight consultants experienced in the treatment of chronic pain were identified by local Pain Clinic consultants in 5 centres. The specialties represented were neurology, neurosurgery, orthopaedic surgery, oncology/radiotherapy, plastic surgery and anaesthesia. Replies were received from 181 consultants (96%). Over one fifth of the consultants expressed no opinion about half of the treatments assessed. Widely divergent views were held by those who did give an opinion. Many clinicians assessed some treatments as 'poor' while other clinicians assessed the same treatments as 'excellent' (neurolytic nerve block, somatic nerve block, cordotomy and opioids). For some treatments divergence of opinion can be explained in part by differences between specialties. For other treatments marked diversity was seen within as well as between specialties. There is a clear need for education in the use of particular treatments, even amongst those clinicians who regularly see this type of patient.

Chronic Disease↗