Shift to outpatient procedures has cut inpatient waiting times in England and Wales

Introduction: Numerous reports highlight variations in pain clinic provision between services, particularly in the provision of multidisciplinary services and length of waiting times. A National Audit aims to identify and quantify these variations, to facilitate raising standards of care in identified areas of need. This article describes a Quality Improvement Programme cycle covering England and Wales that used such an approach to remedy the paucity of data on the current state of UK pain clinics. Methods: Clinics were audited over a 4-year period using standards developed by the Faculty of Pain Medicine of The Royal College of Anaesthetists. Reporting was according to guidance from a recent systematic review of national surveys of pain clinics. A range of quality improvement measures was introduced via a series of roadshows led by the British Pain Society. Results: 94% of clinics responded to the first audit and 83% responded to the second. Per annum, 0.4% of the total national population was estimated to attend a specialist pain service. A significant improvement in multidisciplinary staffing was found (35–56%, p < 0.001) over the 4-year audit programme, although this still requires improvement. Very few clinics achieved recommended evidence-based waiting times, although only 2.5% fell outside government targets; this did not improve. Safety standards were generally met. Clinicians often failed to code diagnoses. Conclusion: A National Audit found that while generally safe many specialist pain services in England and Wales fell below recommended standards of care. Waiting times and staffing require improvement if patients are to get effective and timely care. Diagnostic coding also requires improvement.

Download Full-text

It’s a small bit of advice, but actually on the day, made such a difference…: perceptions of quality in abortion care in England and Wales

Reproductive Health ◽

10.1186/s12978-021-01270-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Katherine C. Whitehouse ◽

Rebecca Blaylock ◽

Shelly Makleff ◽

Patricia A. Lohr

Keyword(s):

Service User ◽

Care Pathway ◽

Quality Care ◽

Waiting Times ◽

Positive Interactions ◽

Interpersonal Interactions ◽

Healthcare Outcomes ◽

England And Wales ◽

Important Contributor ◽

Abortion Care

Abstract Background Quality of care (QOC) is increasingly identified as an important contributor to healthcare outcomes, however little agreement exists on what constitutes quality in abortion care or the recommended indicators from the service-user perspective. Our study aimed to explore perceptions and experiences of abortion QOC in England and Wales. Methods We performed in-depth interviews (via phone or in-person) with participants who had an abortion at a nationwide independent sector provider in the previous 6 months. We explored their experiences of the abortion service at each point in the care pathway, their perspectives on what contributed to and detracted from the experience meeting their definitions of quality, and their reflections on different aspects of QOC. We used content analysis to generate themes. Results From December 2018 to July 2019, we conducted 24 interviews. Ten participants had a surgical and 14 had a medical abortion. Seventeen (71%) were treated in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy and 7 (29%) beyond that, with an average gestational age of 10 weeks + 5 days (range 5–23 + 6). We identified 4 major themes that contributed to participant’s perception of high quality care: (1) interpersonal interactions with staff or other patients, (2) being informed and prepared, (3) participation and choices in care and (4) accessibility. Nearly all participants identified interpersonal interactions with staff as an important contributor to quality with positive interactions often cited as the best part of their abortion experience and negative interactions as the worst. For information and preparation, participant described not only the importance of being well prepared, but how incongruencies between information and the actual experience detracted from quality. Participants said that making choices about their care, for example, method of abortion, was a positive contributor. Finally, participants identified access to care, specifically in relation to waiting times and travel, as an important aspect of QOC. Conclusions Participants situated quality in abortion care in 4 domains: interpersonal aspects of care, information and preparation, choices, and accessibility. Indicators identified can be used to develop standard metrics to ensure care meets service-user needs.

Download Full-text