Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives To explore patients' and family members' experiences of and views about speaking up about safety concerns at the point of care.
Design Qualitative study using 71 individual interviews and 12 focus group discussions.
Participants and settings People with recent experience of one of five conditions or interventions associated with different safety problems (childhood asthma, diabetes, breast cancer, elective joint replacement and severe and enduring mental health problems) and people who had lodged concerns with healthcare providers were recruited from both NHS services (primary and secondary care) and patient support organisations.
Findings Participants had identified various safety concerns in the course of their healthcare and had sometimes spoken up about these as they occurred. Their inclination and ability to speak up were apparently variously shaped by their assessments of the gravity of the threat of harm, the relative importance of their concern given other patients' needs and staff workloads and priorities, their confidence about their grounds for concern, roles and responsibilities and the likely consequences of speaking up. These assessments were pervasively influenced by the way healthcare staff behaved and related to them. People who had spoken up about concerns reported diverse responses from health professionals. Some responses averted harm or provided welcome reassurance, but others exacerbated anxieties and possibly contributed to patient harm.
Conclusion The potential for patients to contribute to their safety by speaking up about their concerns depends heavily on the quality of patient–professional interactions and relationships.
- Patient safety
- patient participation
- professional–patient relations
- communication
- qualitative research
- quality of care
- safety culture
Statistics from Altmetric.com
- Patient safety
- patient participation
- professional–patient relations
- communication
- qualitative research
- quality of care
- safety culture
Recent initiatives to improve patient safety have focused on reporting and learning from safety problems, improving the design of healthcare technologies and systems, communication among health professionals and safety cultures within healthcare organisations.1 ,2
The possibility that patientsi might contribute to their own and others' safety was noted early in the patient safety movement: the report To Err is Human2 suggested they could serve as last (failsafe) checks in their care. Several authors have since discussed other ways that patients might be involved in safety improvement.3–5
The most widespread approach to engaging patients as contributors to their own safety involves the production and dissemination of advice that encourages patients, for example, to ask clinicians if they have washed their hands, and to speak up if something does not seem right about their care.6–8 There have been no rigorous studies of the outcomes of this approach,6 ,9 but theoretical critiques suggest some of the proposed behaviours would be impractical and ineffective,7 ,8 ,10 ,11 and studies of patients' views have identified concerns about their acceptability, especially among particular patient groups.8 ,12–15 However, little is known about patients' experiences with the recommended behaviours.
In this paper, the authors report on a qualitative study that aimed to investigate patients' perspectives on healthcare safety and their contributions to their own safety as they use health services. The paper focuses on patients' experiences of and views about speaking up to secure prompt attention for problems at the point of care delivery.
The study received NHS Research Ethics Committee approval.
Methods
Strategic sampling was used to ensure wide variation in the patient groups and healthcare settings considered. Five conditions/treatments associated with different patient profiles and safety problems were identified, and for each of these participants were recruited from (a) NHS services in contrasting areas of England (one more affluent and mixed rural/urban, the other more deprived, urban and ethnically diverse) and (b) relevant patient organisations. People who had formally expressed safety-related concerns about their own or a relative's healthcare were also included. The sample is summarised in table 1.
Study sample
JH, DM and MP conducted individual interviews with 10 people from each of the 5 clinical groups and 11 people who had lodged a complaint about their care. People scheduled for elective joint replacement were interviewed before and after their hospital admission to facilitate exploration of both anticipated and experienced safety concerns, so 71 individual interviews were conducted in total. Interviewers asked about safety in healthcare generally and then invited participants to focus on their own healthcare and comment on: experiences of error, harm or situations in which something could have been wrong with their care; the perceived causes and preventability of these situations; and what, if any, action they took or considered taking at the time. Interview approaches and emergent findings were reviewed and discussed regularly by team members, and reflections on early interviews encouraged careful probing of key issues in subsequent interviews. As later interviews were conducted, it was agreed that no new issues were emerging.
JH, DM and MP then convened 12 focus groups (one with people recruited via NHS services and one with people recruited from patient organisations for each of the six heath issues). They used material from individual interviews to develop vignettes of healthcare situations to stimulate discussion about how patients might help ensure their safety. They also asked participants to discuss the relative ease of carrying out particular actions that safety agencies have recommended.
Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. YB, VE, JH, DM, MP, IW and BW read a wide selection of transcripts as they became available and developed the analytic strategy in a series of team discussions. A thematic coding framework was developed that covered experiences, attitudes and beliefs about various safety issues, and that facilitated a structured analysis of events relating to each safety concern that participants mentioned.
For the primary analysis, JH, DM and MP systematically applied the agreed thematic coding framework16 to transcripts from all 12 focus groups and a sample of 35 individual interviews strategically selected from across the 6 groups as being data-rich and including between them typical, critical and apparently deviant reports of safety issues and speaking up.17 VE checked the coding of 10 transcripts and DM generated an analytic matrix and produced a summary overview of the main findings.18 A summary of preliminary findings was presented at a meeting for study participants. VE led further analysis of findings relating to experiences and views relating to ‘speaking up’ (reported here), and VE and DM between them re-read the 36 individual interview transcripts not included in the primary analysis to ensure all salient points were accommodated.
Findings
Participants had perceived various problems with their healthcare. A total of 128 index concerns were identified in the 35 individual interviews used for the primary analysis. Index concerns were situations or events mentioned at the start of problem narratives. They included deteriorations in condition that health professionals did not notice or take sufficiently seriously; missed diagnoses and delays in referral and treatment; errors in prescribing, dispensing and administering medicines; errors in technical testing and treatment procedures; omissions or mistakes in communication; shortfalls in hospital accommodation and cleanliness; exposure to threats from other patients; and deficiencies in inpatient nursing. Similar concerns were mentioned during focus group discussions and in the other 36 individual interviews.
Participants generally viewed speaking up about safety concerns as difficult, requiring careful consideration and a lot of personal energy. Although some people recounted instances in which they had spoken up about perceived problems as they had arisen, they also described instances in which they had not spoken up. They mentioned a number of considerations that had influenced this, but the main overarching finding of this analysis is that patients' inclination and ability to speak up is strongly influenced by how health professionals behave and relate to them. Box 1 provides an initial illustration.
Factors affecting the ease of ‘speaking up’
This extract is from a conversation among members of a focus group. The participants, people with experience of severe and enduring mental health problems, took turns to read out various behavioural recommendations that they were asked to discuss.
(4) I shall read out the first one … It's ‘Challenge staff if you think they are doing something wrong’.
(2) And, do you? I'm going between ‘more difficult’ and ‘very difficult’ because, to some extent it would depend on how well I was feeling at the time. If I were feeling confident and reasonably well, I'd probably put it in the ‘more difficult’ category, and if I were feeling really lousy, I think it would be ‘very difficult’.
(5) My husband's in hospital at the minute and I went yesterday and I noticed that the nurses are going around from patient to patient and they're not washing their hands as they're supposed to and his drip is empty and it's now drawing blood out of his arm … instead of dripping into him. But I thought well, if you actually make a complaint, it's worse for the patient, isn't it really? So I just went politely along, I didn't say anything about they weren't washing their hands, but I did say could they do something about his drip.
(4) Yes
(5) It's not easy. I think if you complain, your number's marked and you're a difficult patient.
(3) I think I've a fear of that, so I'd probably class it as ‘more difficult’. That's probably relating to my experiences in hospital where we used to live. I've recently had a spell in hospital here in [place] and actually was more relaxed with the staff, so probably would be heading towards the easier end. But again, it does depend on my frame of mind, the mood I'm in. When I'm very depressed, I think we'd be looking at very difficult. So I think I'd actually go from one end of the scale to the other depending on my mood, who I'm talking to, how well I know them.
(2) I mean, I actually found here … that [challenging staff] actually became quite easy because the staff were so approachable and positive and it wasn't a question of complaining—more a question of bringing things to their attention that I thought they should know. But again, where we lived before, I couldn't have done it because the attitudes were so different.
(4) Yes, you're right in what you say …
(1) I think the attitudes are better now. Yes, they're better. And if you do raise something they are prepared to listen to you. Yes … It has changed over the last few years.
(Focus group, people with severe and enduring mental health problems)
The following sections analyse patients' reasons for speaking up (or not) at the point of care and then consider participants' reports of how health professionals responded when they did voice concerns. A range of reasons and experiences were reported within all sample groups and no issues were found exclusively in one group, so all findings are reported together and illustrative quotations have been selected from across the dataset.
Reasons for speaking up (or not)
Participants gave various reasons for speaking up (or not) when they developed concerns about their safety, and mentioned several factors that could make speaking up easier or harder. Their multiple considerations were often interlinked in their accounts—frequently embedded in narratives that related sequences of events and interactions with health professionals. For clarity, the reported considerations are presented as relating primarily to judgements about four main issues, followed by consideration of how participants suggested these judgements were shaped by the attitudes of healthcare staff and the quality of patient–professional relationships.
Judgements about whether and to what extent situations are problematic
When recounting occasions when they had thought something might be wrong with their health or healthcare, participants often spoke about the nature and severity of the threat posed. They mentioned emotional/psychological as well as physical problems or harms, and formed judgements about, for example, how likely, how imminent and how grave the potential for harm was, and how serious the shortfalls in standards of care were.
Participants also described trying to assess the relative importance of their concern in the context of other patients' needs and staff workloads and priorities. Their thresholds for deeming problems serious enough to warrant speaking up seemed higher when they thought other patients had more pressing needs and staff were either very busy or didn't want to be ‘bothered’ by or with patients. Participants' situational assessments were apparently shaped by their prior experiences, their observations of what was going on around them and communication from healthcare staff (see, eg, box 2i and 2iii).
Assessing problems and potential safety threats
(i) A group of women with breast cancer discussing advice to ‘Speak up if you think your care is not as it should be’ swapped several examples of having spoken up about concerns that turned out to be justified but were not taken seriously by health professionals at the time. They highlighted some implications of health professionals' lack of responsiveness:
(1) if you have got something happening, whether it's you're in discomfort, pain or you feel sick or whatever, especially if you get nothing back when you tell that person, ‘I feel sick’, if there's no acknowledgement of your pain or discomfort, I think … personally I feel left [thinking] ‘Well, maybe I shouldn't’, ‘Maybe I should be able to tolerate this pain’ or, do you know what I mean? It's that feedback that you don't get. So you're left with it, basically. And then that affects the next time you want to speak up and ask them again, you know? ‘Can I have something for my pain?’, or whatever, or ‘Is it normal to be feeling like this?’ and …
(4) I bet we're all so good at undermining how we're feeling. … ‘Does it warrant the attention?’ ‘I think I might have to have …’, And I think you are undermined a lot by nursing staff.
(1) It's unspoken, isn't it? But if you seem to be the only one that's asking for something and having to ask again and again, then, you know, your own mind starts ticking over like, you know, well, ‘Should I be able to put up with this?’ You just want some reassurance.
(Focus group, breast cancer)
(ii) A social worker described how she became more able to detect potential problems—and more inclined to monitor her care—as she became more familiar with chemotherapy regimes:
I had a lot of time to sit and observe … and notice … and because I was going for slightly repetitive treatment and if one person did it slightly differently to another person to me it would be noticeable, and I suppose as time went on, I felt I had to have my wits about me and be on the ball and assert myself … So yes, over time, I did begin to think about that more and ask questions or query …
(iii) However, when concern about a possible infection prompted her to return to the chemotherapy suite, a long wait and the upset that developed as she felt herself ‘forgotten’ led her to doubt her grounds for seeking professional attention:
I'm just sat there … and time went on and you could see how busy they were and everything … and then you start to think, ‘Is it that bad?’ … and you begin to query that to yourself … ‘Maybe I'll come back at the end of the day’ … I was feeling upset by then as well, and I think it was this thing of feeling not knowing whether it was something to worry about, having to assert yourself, and I didn't feel great that day doing that anyway …
(Individual interview, breast cancer (205))
Judgements about personal ability to assess problems
Participants clearly preferred to be ‘sure of their ground’ before speaking up. They seemed generally more confident about their ability to judge whether and to what extent something was problematic if they were familiar with their condition and planned interventions—if they knew what was normal for them and what should or what usually happens in their care.
Various factors, including communication from healthcare staff, could impact on participants' knowledge and confidence. Some participants felt well informed by staff, but several also described learning from experience to identify changes or events that might give cause for concern (box 2ii), and solutions to problems that might recur (box 3iii). However, participants who had received conflicting information or experienced variations in the delivery of particular treatments reported struggling with uncertainty about whether care was appropriate or which variations were safe.
Experiences of staff responses to speaking up
(1) relatively good responses
(i) A man in his early 70s reported being well looked after by medical staff while he was in hospital for a hip replacement, but identified ‘a few mundane things that weren't satisfactory’. He described needing to speak up with alacrity to avoid being given an insulin injection intended for another patient. His action apparently did avert the potential harm.
At one point somebody came to give me an insulin injection, which was a complete mistaken identity. And had I been feeble or semi-conscious, I don't know what would have happened. So I was compos mentis to say, ‘On your bike! You're not going to give me an insulin injection!’ I don't know whether it was a doctor or a nurse, and he said, ‘Oh, I've come to give you an insulin injection.’ And I said, ‘No, I don't think you have.’ And so he just went, and a nurse later on apologised and said she'd got mixed up and there was another [person with the same name] in one of the other wards.
(Individual interview, after joint replacement, 401)
(ii) A woman in her late 70s described speaking up about undue pain after joint replacement surgery. Although the nursing staff apparently failed to identify and correct the problem, it was resolved by the anaesthetist in a way she appreciated.
‘I was on a drip … but for over 2 hours nobody noticed that the drip wasn't running right. I kept saying, ‘I'm in a lot of pain’ … I was going mad with pain … Eventually I got a nurse to, I said ‘Will you get someone to check this for me? … There's something wrong here’ … My own anaesthetist, as soon as he had finished in theatre, he came down and put it right. And apparently it hadn't been dripping. Everything had been blocked up and nobody had noticed. He put me a fresh cannula in and started again. He was great … He just took over and said ‘I'm so sorry about this …’
(Individual interview, after joint replacement, 408)
(iii) A woman who had significant experience with her son's severe asthma related how she spoke up to a doctor who had not treated her son before to say she thought he needed a nebuliser to prevent further deterioration of his condition. This doctor did not listen at first, but a senior colleague told him to listen to the mother and the nebuliser was provided, to the woman's satisfaction.
A new doctor had come in and he didn't know my son's situation. And I mean over the 9 years, I know straightaway he needs a nebuliser, and I got really, really upset because he wasn't listening to what I was saying … The registrar came in and said …'His mother has told you he needs a nebuliser. Give the child a nebuliser', and that made me feel a lot more comfortable … if they hadn't said that, I would have kicked off, which I don't often do, but when it's my son's health and safety … The registrar said, 'His mother knows more than we do how he is and she's telling you this' … [The ‘new’ doctor] did apologise in the end
(Individual interview, parent of a child hospitalised with asthma, 303)
(2) relatively poor responses
(iv) A qualified nurse who had written to a Patient Advice and Liaison Service after experiencing various problems during an inpatient admission described an incident in which she had spoken up to prevent a healthcare assistant from measuring her blood pressure on her arm while she had an antibiotic infusion running into it:
I said ‘Sorry, I haven't got any arms, you're going to have to come back later’, and he said, ‘No, it's OK, I can do your blood pressure on your arm.’ ‘No you can't.’ ‘Yes, I can.’ ‘No, you can't.’ ‘I can: I've done it before.’ I said ‘I'm telling you, I'm a nurse, you do a blood pressure on an arm that's got a patent infusion going, you will blow the vein.’ So he said, ‘It's OK, I can do it on your leg’. ‘No, you can't’. ‘Yes, I can.’ ‘You can do blood pressures on your leg if all the blood pressures are taken on your leg, but not if all the other blood pressures have been taken on your arm because the results will not be comparable.’ ‘Oh, it's OK, I can do it’. And I gave up at that point, and he did it on my leg, and I said ‘You need to record on the chart that you've put it on a different part of the body.’ ‘Oh no I don't’ …
Although the nurse had held her ground to some extent, the healthcare assistant's emphatic disagreement led her to wonder whether she had been wrong, and she later checked with a doctor friend before including the incident in her letter of concern.
(Person who had made a formal complaint, 508)
(v) A woman with severe and enduring mental health problems described attempting to speak up during a previous inpatient stay to try to ensure she could take her medication on time. Nursing staff had not facilitated this and seemed to grudge her request. Her psychiatrist encouraged her to make a complaint and name the nurses involved. This led to a worsening of relations between the woman and the nurses. She became upset, felt rejected, and was subsequently disinclined to summon the strength to ‘fight the system’ to secure timely delivery of her medication.
If you asked for something, they [nursing staff] would almost ignore you … They wouldn't sort anything out for you, they made you feel so unimportant, and as if you were an absolute pain. It was partly the system's fault in that they did have so much paperwork …
My psychiatrist said I had particularly to have some medication at eight o'clock [but] it was given out at 10, because the take over [handover] time was between eight and nine … So I knocked on the door … They told me to go away, and I was really quite distraught … I was very upset and afterwards they were a bit grumpy … And the next day … as soon as I knocked, … I could hear them saying something about me. And they went and got the medication, but it was a nuisance to them. So eventually I did make a complaint to the psychiatrist because I was so angry. And she did take it very seriously and this particular nurse was reprimanded … When I came in [to the ward] in future she sort of would blank me and I felt sort of alienated by the others … So you feel awkward, so you think … ‘I am just going to stick to the 10 o'clock because they can't be bothered and I can't take rejection’. So I just left it. I didn't bother any more … despite what the psychiatrist said …
(Individual interview, woman with severe and enduring mental health problems, 605)
Some people who had long experience of a health condition or had trained as health professionals were generally quite able to recognise potential problems, but were sometimes led to doubt their grounds for concern because they knew they were ill or distressed, or because staff ignored, dismissed or disagreed with their concerns without explaining why (box 2ii, 3iv). The quality of patient–professional relations could moderate patients' need to feel sure of their ground. This need was less evident when participants discussed episodes of care in which they had opportunities to talk with staff who encouraged and responded positively to questions and discussion.
Judgements about roles and responsibilities
Participants expected health professionals and health services to take responsibility for healthcare safety, but generally recognised that there were things patients could—and should—do to help keep themselves safe (eg, telling health professionals about current medications and known allergies). They saw that staff varied in terms of the roles they wanted and enabled patients to play, and in terms of the responsibilities they encouraged and allowed patients to take on. Several said they had found it easier to speak up about potential problems when they had generally been supported to participate in their care. Participants with caring responsibilities (eg, as parents or partners) saw these responsibilities as extending into healthcare settings and increasing their obligation to speak up if necessary (e.g. Box 3iii).
Although participants sometimes reported wanting to contribute more to their care than some health professionals appeared to encourage, they repeatedly emphasised the importance of good relationships with staff. They clearly preferred to contribute without challenging staff in ways that might be interpreted as disrespectful or threatening. However, some noted that confrontation became necessary when more tentative and collaborative approaches to speaking up failed to secure appropriate responses to perceived safety threats.
Judgements about the likely consequences of speaking up
The question of whether speaking up would lead to appropriate corrective action featured prominently in the data, and patients' anticipations of staff responses dominated discussion about the likely consequences of speaking up. Anticipating or receiving a positive response was clearly regarded as facilitative of (further) ‘speaking up’. However, patients often worried that speaking up might result in staff labelling them as difficult, and being less willing to care for them in future. Inpatients who were relatively dependent on professional help were particularly anxious that speaking up might impair their relationships with staff and make them more vulnerable to neglect or abuse (box 1, box 3v).
Patients who thought they needed professional help to avert a problem could find themselves in a double bind if they had concerns about the consequences both of speaking up (for future relationships and care) and of not speaking up (leaving the perceived threat unaddressed).
Patient–professional relationships and the ease of speaking up
Overall, participants' comments strongly suggest that speaking up is easier when healthcare staff give the impression of caring, having time and welcoming and supporting patients as legitimate contributors to their care. Participants who described services where they had consistently been invited to engage in discussions about their care, and had established trusting relationships with staff, also reported feeling able to speak up about concerns as they arose. More usually, however, the variability and unpredictability of staff attitudes towards patients generated anxiety about speaking up and made people think hard about whether (and, if so, how) to do so.
Experiences of staff responses
Some people who had spoken up did report receiving responses they appreciated: staff listened to their concerns, acted promptly to check situations and either addressed problems or provided reassurance and gave the impression of valuing—or at least not being annoyed by—patients' attempts to ensure their safety (box 3i–iii). However, the authors heard many more accounts in which at least one health professional had not listened, had dismissed what patients said without explanation or had otherwise not attended to concerns in ways that reassured patients (box 3iv–v).
Participants whose initial attempts to speak up went unheeded variously reported repeating their concerns, taking them to other healthcare staff, or becoming more assertive or angrily aggressive as they sought to help themselves or a family member. Some described achieving a relatively good resolution after a second attempt to speak up (box 3ii), but others recounted sequences of unproductive interactions, sometimes with escalating confrontation (box 3iv–v).
Stories concluded either with patients getting the kind of corrective attention they sought or with patients backing down, accepting care they saw as substandard and leaving the original problem unresolved or exacerbated. Some people were additionally left feeling demeaned, rejected and uncared for, less confident and disinclined to speak up again for fear of negative comment (box 3iv–v).
Discussion
Summary of findings
People who had used diverse clinical services identified various potential threats to their safety. They generally considered speaking up about these to be difficult, and their inclination to do so was significantly influenced by their particular healthcare environment and especially their experiences of patient–professional relationships. Participants' observations of, and communication with, healthcare staff affected their assessments of both the seriousness of their situation and the appropriateness of speaking up. Those who did speak up usually sought to do so without ‘challenging’ health professionals. They met with diverse responses, some of which effectively addressed their safety concerns while others appeared to contribute to various forms of harm.
Study strengths and limitations
This study explored the views of people with varied demographic characteristics and experiences of health conditions and services associated with diverse safety issues. It included people who had formally expressed concerns about healthcare safety. The study asked about both specific experiences and general views of safety issues, and used both individual interviews and focus groups. The striking consistency of findings across diverse patient groups and methods makes us confident that the insights generated are broadly applicable—at least within UK contexts.
The authors did not attempt to validate patients' assessments of threats to their physical safety, nor to ascertain the frequency with which safety incidents occur, patients speak up or health professionals respond in particular ways.
Relationship to previous literature and study implications
The findings of this study support those of several recent studies that show patients can and do identify various problems in their care.19–21 They reinforce concerns derived from theoretical critiques and studies of health professionals' and patients' assessments of safety advice that patients can find it hard to speak up about such problems.7 ,8 ,12–14
This study emphasises that patients' abilities to speak up to ensure their safety are strongly dependent on the settings and cultures of healthcare provision, and particularly on the attitudes and sense of relationship that health professionals communicate. It highlights how ‘personal factors’15 such as knowledge and confidence that have been associated with different levels of patient engagement can be shaped by the ways staff behave and relate to patients.
Critics of campaigns to encourage patients to speak up about their safety have correctly observed that some of the things that patients worry about do not pose a substantial threat to their (physical) safety.22 However, some of the problems that patients identify would lead to harm if not attended to, and concerns that go unaddressed can fester into significant worries.
This study illustrates the additional harms that may be associated with staff responses to patients' attempts to speak up about an initial concern. Poor responses can compound objectively discernible safety problems and may also remove patients' sense of safety, damage their psychological wellbeing, undermine their confidence in professional care, and depress their inclination and ability to contribute to their care in future. These potential negative impacts are not trivial. Emotional harms are significant to patients19 and staff who undermine patients' self-evaluations and ability to act in their own interests contravene professional aspirations to respect patients' autonomy as well as to promote their health.23 ,24
Health service organisations increasingly express commitments to reduce harm, and some encourage patients to speak up about their concerns to help ensure their safety. These commitments will not be fulfilled if staff behaviours deter patients from speaking up and leave those patients who do speak up feeling worse off for having done so. The findings of this study strongly suggest that campaigns to encourage patients to speak up may do more harm than good if health professionals do not respond appropriately.
While patients' speaking up should not be relied upon,7 ,10 it should be appropriately responded to both as a matter of respect and as a useful adjunct to other safety-enhancing strategies. Research is now needed to examine why some healthcare staff deter and respond unhelpfully to patients' efforts to speak up to help ensure their safety. Suggestions in the data include references to uncaring attitudes and to working conditions and cultures that are not conducive to good patient–staff communication. These need further investigation, but action and research could progress in parallel. At a simple level, health service leaders might consider ‘listen up’ campaigns for staff to complement ‘speak up’ campaigns for patients. More far-reaching efforts might be needed, however, to cultivate the mutual trust that can support effective patient–professional collaboration on safety issues.25 Attention should be paid to the implications of working cultures for patient–professional relationships as well as for more specific safety issues.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the patients, patient support groups, clinicians and service administrators who participated in or otherwise supported the project. The authors thank Sandi Newby for administrative support throughout the project.
References
Footnotes
The PIPS group comprises the authors of this paper plus Simon Gilbody (University of York), Su Golder (University of York), Peter Mansell (formerly with National Patient Safety Agency) and Trevor Sheldon (University of York).
Funding This study was funded by the Department of Health Patient Safety Research Programme (PSRP PS/034). Vikki Entwistle's post is part-funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Department, NHS Education Scotland and the Scottish Funding Council (via the Alliance for Self-Care Research). The funders played no role in data collection or analysis, and the authors have prepared this manuscript independently of the funders.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Bradford NHS Research Ethics Committee (ref. 06/Q1202/88).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
↵i The term ‘patients’ is used to include patients, their family members and others who care for them but are not employed to do so as members of health service staff.