Browse site A to Z

Search results

Go To Advanced Search

Needle phobia

Description: Patients do not often disagree with the clinician who is treating them. When disagreement occurs, under some circumstances, this may lead
Url: /HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Needle-phobia.aspx

Papers Trust Board - 13 January 2026

Description: Date Time Location Chair Apologies Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 13/01/2026 9:00 - 13:00 Conference Room, Heartbeat Education
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2026-Trust-documents/Papers-Trust-Board-13-January-2026.pdf

Quality account 24-25 final

Description: QUALITY ACCOUNT 2024/25 QUALITY ACCOUNT Contents Part 1: Statement on quality from the chief executive 1.1 Chief executi
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/quality-account-24-25-final1.pdf

Papers Trust Board 27 May 2021

Description: Date Time Location Chair Agenda Trust Board – Open Session 27/05/2021 9:00 - 13:00 Microsoft Teams Peter Hollins 1
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2021-Trust-document/TB-papers/Papers-Trust-Board-27-May-2021.pdf

Preaching to patients

Description: In a recent case, a nurse appealed against her dismissal for initiating discussions about religion with patients.
Url: /HealthProfessionals/Clinical-law-updates/Preaching-to-patients.aspx

UHS AR 23-24 Final

Description: 2023/24 Incorporating the quality account University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2023/24
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/UHS-AR-23-24-Final.pdf

Annual report 2021-2022

Description: 2021/22 Incorporating the quality report University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust Annual Report and Accounts 2021/22 P
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Annual-reports-and-quality-accounts/Annual-report-2021-2022.pdf

Papers Sept 2020 held in closed session due to Covid-19

Description: Date Time Location Chair Agenda - Trust Board Meeting 29/09/2020 9:00 - 16:00 Microsoft Teams Peter Hollins 1 Chair’s Welcome, Apologies and Declarations of Interest 9:00 To note apologies for absence, and to hear any declarations of interest relating to any item on the Agenda. Minutes of Previous Closed Meeting held on 27 August 2020 (Not for publication) Matters Arising and Summary of Agreed Actions (Not for publication) OPEN ITEMS (For publication) 2 QUALITY, PERFORMANCE and FINANCE 2.1 Patient Story To receive feedback from patients, carers, or other stakeholders about their experience of the Trust's services. 2.2 Briefing from Chair of Charitable Funds Committee for review (Oral) 9:15 Dave Bennett, Chair 2.3 Briefing from Chair of Finance & Investment Committee for review (Oral) 9:20 Jane Bailey, Chair 2.4 Briefing from Chair of People & OD Committee for review (Oral) 9:25 Jenni Douglas-Todd, Chair 2.5 Integrated Performance Report for Month 5 for assurance 9:30 To review the Trust's performance as reported in the Integrated Performance Report Sponsor: Paula Head, Chief Executive 2.5.1 10:15 Access Targets: Cancer Trajectory Update for review Sponsor: Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer 2.5.2 10:25 ED Performance & Recovery Plan Update for review Sponsor: Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer 2.6 Violence and Aggression Progression Report for review 10:40 Sponsor: Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer Attendee: Sandra Hodgkyns, Head of Security/Emergency Planning (LSMS) 2.7 Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) and Workforce Disability 10:50 Equality Standard (WDES) Annual Reports 2019/20 for review and Action Plans 2020/21 for review Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer Attendee: Gemma Genco, Head of Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity 2.8 Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) Experience Improvement Plan 11:05 for approval Sponsor: Steve Harris, Chief People Officer Attendees: Gemma Genco, Head of Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity/ John Norton, Chair, BAME One Voice Network 2.9 Finance Report for Month 5 for review 11:20 Sponsor: David French, Chief Financial Officer 3 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, RISK and INTERNAL CONTROL 3.1 Feedback from Council of Governors' meeting 1 September 2020 (Oral) 11:35 Sponsor: Peter Hollins, Trust Chair 3.2 Register of Seals, and Chair's Actions for ratification 11:45 In compliance with the Trust Standing Orders, Financial Instructions, and the Scheme of Reservation and Delegation. Sponsor: Peter Hollins, Trust Chair 4 Follow-up Discussion with Governors 11:50 5 To note the date of the next meeting: 29 October 2020 in the Conference Room, Heartbeat/Microsoft Teams (Closed meeting only) 6 Items Circulated to the Board for reading 6.1 CRN: Wessex 2020/21 Quarter 1 Performance Report Sponsor: Derek Sandeman, Chief Medical Officer Page 2 2.5 Integrated Performance Report for Month 5 for assurance 1 Integrated Performance Report 2020-21 Month 5 Report to the Trust Board of Directors dated Tuesday 29 September 2020 Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Date: Purpose Issue to be addressed: Integrated Performance Report 2020/21 Month 5 2.5 Chief Executive 22 September 2020 Assurance Approval or reassurance Y Ratification Information This report is intended to support the Trust Board in assuring that: • the care we provide is safe, caring, effective, responsive and well led in the context of the Covid 19 pandemic • at the same time we continue our journey toward our vision of World Class Care for Everyone. Response to the issue: For the year 2020/21 the Integrated Performance Report has adapted to reflect the current operating environment. In particular we have aligned it with the Care Quality Commission Key Lines of Enquiry and then cut it again to reflect delivery of our Strategic Goals and annual corporate objectives. Implications: This report covers a broad range of trust services and activities. It is (Clinical, Organisational, intended to assist the Board in assuring that the Trust meets regulatory Governance, Legal?) requirements and corporate objectives. Risks: (Top 3) of carrying This report is provided for the purpose of assurance. out the change / or not: Summary: Conclusion This report is provided for the purpose of assurance. and/or recommendation Page 1 of 24 Integrated KPI Board Report covering up to Aug 2020 Sponsor - Andrew Asquith, Director of Financial and Productivity Improvement, andrew.asquith@uhs.nhs.uk Page 2 of 24 Chart Type Cumulative Column Example Cumulative Column Year on Year Line Benchmarked Line Percentiles Control Chart Variance from Target Report Guide Explanation A cumulative column chart is used to represent a total count of the variable and shows how the total count increases over time. This example shows quarterly updates. A cumulative year on year column chart is used to represent a total count of the variable throughout the year. The variable value is reset to zero at the start of the year because the target for the metric is yearly. The line benchmarked chart shows our performance compared to the average performance of a peer group. The number at the bottom of the chart shows where we are ranked in the group (1 would mean ranked 1st that month). A line percentiles chart is used to represent the distribution of a variable. The 50th percentile shows the median value, we also show the 5th, 25th (lower quartile), 75th (upper quartile) and 95th centiles. A control chart shows movement of a variable in relation to it's control limits (the 3 lines = Upper control limit, Mean and Lower control limit). When the value shows special variation (not expected) then it is highlighted green (leading to a good outcome) or red (leading to a bad outcome). Values are considered to show special variation if they -Go outside control limits -Have 6 points in a row above or below the mean, -Trend for 6 points, -Have 2 out of 3 points past 2/3 of the control limit, -Show a significant movement (greater than the average moving range). Variance from target charts are used to show how far away a variable is from it's target each month. Green bars represent the value the metric is achieving better than target and the red bars represent the distance a metric is away from achieving it's target. 2 Page 3 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 Introduction The Trust Integrated Performance Report is presented to the Trust Board each month. For the year 2020/21 the Integrated Performance Report has adapted to reflect the current operating environment. In particular we have aligned it with the Care Quality Commission Key Lines of Enquiry and then cut it again to reflect delivery of our Strategic Goals and annual corporate objectives in order to: • Demonstrate that we can assure ourselves that the care we provide is safe, caring, effective, responsive and well led in the context of the Covid 19 pandemic • Ensure that at the same time we continue our journey toward our vision of World Class Care for Everyone. We might adjust/ or add to these indicators – informing the Board and keeping a comparative narrative – if the situation changes as we work through these unusual circumstances. An example of this might be measuring vulnerable groups as the evidence around COVID emerges. The monthly Trust Integrated Performance Report is currently complemented by a ‘Covid-19 Balanced Scorecard’ which is considered by the UHS Integrated Assurance Group, and also available to Board Members, on alternate weeks. August 2020 Summary During August the direct impact of Covid 19 infections upon the Trust continued to reduce. The number of beds occupied by patients with Covid 19 remained in low single figures and at times there were 0 Covid 19 inpatients. Over a 2 week period we tested 0 positive staff or patients. Covid 19 in the local community also remained low, with infection rates estimated at 4-7 per 100,000. Non-elective admission volumes in total remained at approximately 90% of their normal levels. Elective spells increased to approximately 72% of their normal levels. Elective activity continued to be adversely affected by the need to socially distance, particularly in outpatients, infection control guidance (which was relaxed for some cases in the middle of August) and the inability to fill theatre lists when patients cancelled at the last minute because of the need to isolate for 14 days. The trust has sought to prioritise the reduced elective capacity available towards those patients requiring assessment or treatment more urgently, and to provide assessments by telephone or video whenever appropriate. The trust started to develop detailed speciality specific recovery plans in August, in line with the Wave 3 letter, as well as each service 3 Page 4 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 RESPONSIVE • Emergency Department timeliness deteriorated in August, reaching 85.9% across the month (RE 10). Other Trusts have also seen similar deterioration, though UHS had the fourth best performance out of 8 ‘peer’ Major Trauma Centres (RE9). Attendance numbers increased to approximately 85% of the normal level (RE 8), whilst enhanced infection control precautions remained in place. • The percentage of patients waiting up to 18 weeks from referral to treatment improved marginally to 55% (RE 14). The total number of patients waiting is now above pre-Covid levels, at 34,900 patients (RE 15), and is expected to increase further, due to the recovery in the number of referrals being made to hospital (RE 12). The percentage of patients waiting more than 6 weeks for a diagnostic test (RE 20) improved from 35% to 40%, though the total number of patients waiting continued to increase and is now above pre-Covid levels (RE 19). The average waiting time for new outpatient appointments further reduced in August and is now at 8.8 weeks (RE 18). • Cancer performance measures for July indicate that UHS 62 day performance (RE 21) improved and is now the best amongst our 10 ‘peer’ teaching hospitals, and that 31 day performance (RE 22) further improved to 98.2% and achieved the national standard. The number of patients still waiting with pathways greater than 104 days (RE 23) reduced from 36 to 17. There remain challenges particularly in the head and neck tumour site. 4 Page 5 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 RESPONSIVE Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 6,800 6,533 RE1 Non-elective Spells (including CDU) Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Monthly Target 6,058 - 4,000 7.5 RE2-L Non Elective LOS Rolling 12 months 6.42 6.0 250 RE3 Number of patients medically optimised for discharge Longer LOS Census average RE4-N (Patients with LOS > =21days) 0 211 227.34 180.19 133.04 - 6.10 123 - 137 - RE5-l Adult midday bed occupancy 95.2% 72.4% 90-95% RE6 Last minute cancelled operations not readmitted within 28 days 3 150 78 RE7 Hospital initiated cancelled ops 91% 80.3% 81% 85.04% 90.7% 71% 766545365325334 Patients spending less than 4hrs in ED RE10-N UHS Total (includes SGH all types and lymington until Jul 19) 91.51% 83.3% 75.05% 82.2% 85.9% 91.27% Q Target - 95% 95% RE11-N Total time spent in ED Total Percentiles UHS Mean, 3:16 50th, 3:06 90th, 4:07 Mean, 2:50 - - 50th, 2:47 RE12 Accepted Referrals 25000 22249 14883 - - RE13 Elective spells 0 2,000 0 1,453 1,191 - - 6 Page 7 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 RESPONSIVE RE14-N % Patients on an open 18 week pathway (within 18 weeks ) Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 83% 84.0% 78% 72% 54.75% Target > =92% 35000 Total number of patients on a waiting RE15-N list (18 week referral to treatment pathway) RE16 Face to face outpatient attendances 28000 50,000 52,480 33746 34903 24,043 - RE17 Non-face to face outpatient attendances 0 50,000 7,948 0 RE17 - Latest month is awaiting approx ~3k outpatient attendances to be reported 12,900 - RE18 Average weeks waited for first outpatient appointment 9,000 RE19 Patients waiting for diagnostics 4,000 RE20-N % of Patients waiting over 6 weeks for diagnostics 19% 121%% 7.5 7004 2.8% 8.8 - 8794 - 39.61% RE22-N 31 day cancer wait performance (latest data held by UHS) no.patients Target to recover QTD Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul /July 1 94.5% 78.4% N=> N = 12 90% L=> L= 17 of 84% 76.5% 72.6% 95% 111.5 36578645655121 0.5 96.2% 92.4% 88.5% 98.22% N=> 96% N=0 of 805 0.9665821 RE23 Snapshot of waits > 104 days (from referral on a 62 day pathway) 33 38 41 55 52 41 29 35 27 29 11 25 36 17 - - 100% RE24-N 28 Day Faster Diagnosis 70% 10,000 RE25 My Medical Record - UHS patient logins 5,000 0 2500 RE26 Number of Estates Help desk requests and percentage completed on time 900 100% 85% 75% 4,634 1620 81.0% 85% => 75 % - 7,132 - 1516 - 89.6% > 85% 50% 79.80% 89.0% 8 Page 9 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 RESPONSIVE 50% Monthly Target Target QTD /July - Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Jan Elective inpatient activity - % of same time last year 60.00% 50.19% RE27 UHS Corporate peer average ------------------------------Rank--> 48.32% 000000000047330 0.00% Non-elective inpatient activity - % of same time last year RE28 UHS 110.00% 108.41% 100.61% Corporate peer average ------------------------------Rank--> 000000000046650 0.00% 1st outpatient attendances - % of same time last year 100.00% 96.80% RE29 UHS Corporate peer average ------------------------------Rank--> 70.70% 000000000065570 0.00% 9 Page 10 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 SAFE • The majority of measures indicate that safety has been maintained during August. • New Covid-19 diagnoses amongst hospital inpatients (SA5, SA6) have reduced significantly, and there were no cases of ‘probable’ transmission or ‘healthcare-acquired’ Covid-19 in UHS inpatient services in August. The Covid 0 campaign continued to be rolled out, focusing on the absolute importance of stopping nosocomial COVID infection. The campaign encourages all people to follow government guidance when walking apart, wear a mask where you can’t, and continue to wash your hands as often as possible. • Statutory and mandatory training compliance further reduced in August. • Both clinical and Serco cleaning scores showed an improvement in August; with both meeting 100. • As expected CHPPD for all areas this month is still elevated at 11.0 (RN 6.7, HCA 4.3) with ward only areas also elevated at 9.4 (RN 5.0, HCA 4.4). This is reflective of new ward configurations, roster changes, additional staff deployments and reduced patient numbers in some areas. • In UHS ward-based areas, the data shows that total nursing staff vacancies have increased to 9.63%. Registered nurse vacancies in ward-based areas have decreased this month to 15.52%. This position is being continuously validated as data, sourced from rosters, has been affected by the significant ward changes in size and specialty focus that have occurred as a result of the COVID-19 restart plan. Annual ward staffing reviews are currently taking place to confirm required levels against the changed configurations. Monthly Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Target YTD YTD Target SA1-N Cumulative Clostridium difficile 2 SA2 MRSA bacterium 0 100 SA3 Clinical cleaning scores for very high risk areas 99 95 SA4 Serco cleaning scores for very high risk areas 100 99 95 27 5 32 32 0 0 100 98 - 14days after admission 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 14 1 0 0 Probable hospital-associated 50 SA6 COVID infection: COVID-positive sample taken > 7 days and 95% - 96.3% YTD Target - - > 95% 12 Page 13 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 CARING • The majority of measures indicate that UHS has continued to provide caring services during August. • Friends and family negative scores remained below target, at 3.7% (CA1), although maternity saw an increase for the second month, rising to 8.3% (CA2). • Complaints per 1,000 units remained significantly below the target, at 0.27 (CA4). The number of complaints closed on time continues to make a slow recovery following the pausing of complaints investigation at the height of Covid 19. In August the Trust achieved 46%, compared to 41% in July (CA5) • The percentage of women receiving ‘Continuity of Care’ within the Maternity service remained static at 11% and remains well below the target of 35%. A plan has been developed to drive improvements in this aspect of care. • The number of non-clinically justified overnight ward moves rose slightly in August, to 68 (CA9). An action plan is being developed to reduce these. Monthly Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Target 0.6% CA1-N FFT Negative Score - Inpatients 5% =35% 1.30 CA4-L Complaints per 1000 units 0.00 CA5-L % Complaints closed within 35 days 80% 0% 0.38 81% Page 14 of 24 =70% 13 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 0% Jun Jul Aug Sep 100% % Patients reporting being CA6 involved in decisions about care and treatment 50% 100% % Patients reporting finding CA7 somebody to talk to about worries and fears 50% 100% % Patients with a CA8 disability/additional needs reporting those needs/adjustments were met 50% CA9 Overnight ward moves with a reason marked as non-clinical Jun Jul Aug Sep 135.76 99 76.96 18.16 18.0 Total nursing staff all inpatient CA10 areas - Care hours per patient day13.0 (CHPPD) 8.0 40.0 Same Sex Accommodation CA11 (Non Clinically Justified Breaches) 20.0 2 0.0 9.0 11 4 4 CARING Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 32 12 1 1 0 15 0 0 0 Monthly Target Jul Aug 84% > =90% 91% > =90% 94% > =90% Monthly Jul Aug Target 68 - 11.0 - - 0 0 14 Page 15 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 EFFECTIVE • The number of patients screened for alcohol and smoking continued to significantly exceed the 80% target, at 97% (EF5) • The number of patients found to have either a moderate or high dependence on alcohol (EF6), or to smoke (EF7) who were given advice or an onward referral continued to exceed the targets, at 80% and 94% respectively. EF1-L Cumulative Specialities with Outcome Measures Developed Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 47 52 52 53 54 223 234 250 255 260 Monthly Target +1 100% EF2 Developed Outcomes RAG ratings 75% 78% 77% 79% 80% 81% 50% 100 EF3-N HSMR - UHS HSMR - SGH 81 75 4.5% EF4 HSMR - Crude Mortality Rate 2.9% 80% 15 Page 16 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 EFFECTIVE 80% Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug % patients screened & found to EF6-N have either moderate or high alcohol dependence given advice 90% 87% 80% or referral 70% % patients screened & found to 100% 83% 94% EF7-N smoke given brief advice or a medication offer 60% Monthly Target > 90% > 90% 16 Page 17 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 WELL LED • Turnover this month has increased due to the student nurses who joined the trust to support for covid have started to return to their University courses and this has strongly affected the turnover % this month, and is likely to continue next month as these students are leaving UHS. • In clinical ward areas there are 163 registered nurses and 153 healthcare assistants in the covid ‘at risk’ categories who are unable to be deployed to some patient-facing activities. The majority of these staff have now been deployed to low risk areas, as risk levels are continuously reviewed. All nursing staff have been flexibly deployed to manage this deployment safely. A review is ongoing with covid assessments to move our system to be covid age instead of risk level 1 – 3. • This month staffing remains amber overall because some key targets have been missed for staff turnover, sickness and appraisals. The in-month sickness absence rate has seen a decrease and is below its normal position, but the 12 month figure is elevated due to the spoke during the pandemic. • Statutory and mandatory training compliance has seen some slippage (with 6 of 12 measures meeting target) due to COVID-19 and the reductions in training release during that time. • Recognising the pause in appraisals during COVID efforts are now being focused on improving quantity undertaken whilst retaining the important focus on quality of discussion as reflected in our staff survey. • UHS has seen an increase in rates of employment for BAME Band 7+ to 9.37%, but is still on an upwards trend. UHS is now monitoring BAME individual occupying 35 key medical leadership positions. This will be reported on a quarterly basis. WL1-L Substantive Staff - Turnover Monthly Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Target 13.90% 13.18% 12.46% 12.8% 13.3% 92% 77.24% 17 Page 18 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 WELL LED Monthly Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Target WL3-L 100.00% Staff - Medical appraisals completed - Rolling 12-months 50.00% 0.00% 60.00% WL4-L Staff vacancies 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% 4.09% WL5-L Staff - Sickness absence 4.43% 3.7% 2.99% 3.31% 2.91% =76% 30% 20% WL9-L Black & Minority Ethnic Band 7+ Percentage 9% 8.8% 9.4% 15% by 2023 7% WL10 Cumulative Number of staff trained in QI 1001 1064 1171 WL10 - QI training programme, and reporting, is currently temporarily suspended as team members support urgent change programmes as part of our Covid 19 response and recovery WL11 Statutory & Mandatory Training Achieving Target 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 - 100 WL12 Number of Apprenticeship Starts 53 - 50 29 28 23 0 19 Page 20 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 2020 WELL LED 0 Monthly Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Target WL13-L Comparative CRN Recruitment Performance by clinical specialty 44% 44% 52% 56% 52% > =50% 2 WL14-L Comparative CRN Recruitment Performance - weighted 4 5 5 6 Top 5 WL15-L Comparative CRN Recruitment - contract commercial 15 15 13 13 13 Proportion of studies closing in FY on 88% WL16-L time and to recruitment target - 59% 65% 65% 50% non-commercial 452 WL17 NIHR CRF & BRC publications Year on year growth 329 246 137 Top 10 > =80% 20 Page 21 of 24 Report to Trust Board in September 20C20hanges and Corrections Section Responsive Responsive Responsive KPI KPI Name Type Elective inpatient activity - % RE26 of same time last year Addition Non-elective inpatient RE27 activity - % of same time last Addition year 1st outpatient attendances - RE28 % of same time last year Addition Detail Addition of benchmark position - % activity compared to same time last year, with rank and average of corporate peer group CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST OXFORD UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST SHEFFIELD TEACHING HOSPITALS NHS FOUNDATION TRUST UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS BRISTOL AND WESTON NHS FOUNDATION TRUST UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF LEICESTER NHS TRUST 21 Page 22 of 24 Nursing and midwifery staffing hours - Aug 2020 Report notes Our staffing levels are monitored daily and we will risk assess and fill any gaps to ensure that safe staffing levels are always maintained The total hours planned is our planned staffing levels to deliver care across all of our areas but does not represent a baseline safe staffing level. We plan for an average of one registered nurse to every five or seven patients in most of our areas but this can change as we regularly review the care requirements of our patients and adjust our staffing accordingly. Staffing on intensive care and high dependency units is always adjusted depending on the number of patients being cared for and the level of support they require. Therefore the numbers will fluctuate considerably across the month when compared against our planned numbers. Enhanced Care (also known as Specialling) Occurs when patients in an area require more focused care than we would normally expect. In these cases extra, unplanned staff are assigned to support a ward. If enhanced care is required the ward may show as being over filled. If a ward has an unplanned increase or decrease in bed availability the ward may show as being under or over filled, even though it remains safely and appropriately staffed. CHPPD (Care Hours Per Patient Day) This is a measure which shows on average how many hours of care time each patient receives on a ward /department during a 24 hour period from registered nurses and support staff - this will vary across wards and departments based on the specialty, interventions, acuity and dependency levels of the patients being cared for. The maternity workforce consists of teams of midwives who work both within the hospital and in the community offering an integrated service and are able to respond to women wherever they choose to give birth. This means that our ward staffing and hospital birth environments have a core group of staff but the numbers of actual midwives caring for women increases responsively during a 24 hour period depending on the number of women requiring care. During the last 2 weeks in March and beyond a number of our clinical areas started to change specialty and size to respond to the COVID-19 situation (e.g G5-G9, Critical Care and RHDU). Repurposing of wards to respond to the COVID-19 social distancing recommendations and to enable the separation and restart of services continues with changes sometimes being swift in nature. The data may in some cases not be fully reflective of these changes. WARD C4 (Solent ward) C4 (Solent ward) C6 C6 C6 (Teenage Cancer Trust unit) C6 (Teenage Cancer Trust unit) D2 D2 D3 D3 Critical Care Critical Care E5A E5A E5B E5B F10 E F10 E F11 F11 ASU ASU F6 F6 F5 F5 Acute medical unit Acute medical unit D5 D5 D6 D6 D8 D8 D9 D9 E7 E7 Respiratory high dependency unit Respiratory high dependency unit C5 C5 D10 D10 f7 f7 G5 G5 G6 G6 G7 G7 G8 G8 G9 G9 Registered nurses Total hours planned Registered nurses Total hours worked Unregistered staff Total hours planned Unregistered staff Total hours worked Registered nurses % Filled Day 1383.7 1370.1 1048.9 1253.3 99.0% Night 1069.3 1011.8 713.0 1176.8 94.6% Day 2791.3 2783.6 183.5 414.7 99.7% Night 2049.3 2097.4 102.4% 0.0 320.0 Day 727.5 564.5 331.9 334.8 77.6% Night 674.0 597.0 88.6% 0.0 96.7 Day 1303.0 1671.0 1108.0 909.8 128.2% Night 1057.5 1058.3 713.0 759.0 100.1% Day 1685.5 1641.7 689.2 1157.0 97.4% Night 1046.3 1083.5 686.3 812.5 103.6% Day 21459.4 18076.5 4440.8 2978.6 84.2% Night 20549.2 17565.5 2736.5 2251.8 85.5% Day 1339.7 1171.4 723.4 1019.4 87.4% Night 714.0 679.5 356.5 701.5 95.2% Day 1413.6 1190.3 811.5 1112.0 84.2% Night 713.0 713.0 356.5 597.8 100.0% Day 2313.5 1483.1 623.0 1277.7 64.1% Night 1069.5 1001.5 713.0 793.5 93.6% Day 1953.9 1405.9 774.8 1011.3 72.0% Night 713.0 713.8 713.0 885.5 100.1% Day 1480.3 1056.8 417.5 589.0 71.4% Night 695.0 718.0 356.5 327.5 103.3% Day 2306.0 1384.7 576.8 1345.9 60.0% Night 1069.5 1030.8 701.5 850.0 96.4% Day 1969.1 1534.2 1322.9 1268.3 77.9% Night 1069.5 991.5 712.5 873.5 92.7% Day 3572.8 4020.6 3294.5 3737.1 112.5% Night 3548.8 4008.4 2495.5 3893.3 113.0% Day 1255.0 1313.0 1668.0 1572.3 104.6% Night 1046.5 993.0 934.5 858.0 94.9% Day 1120.5 1061.3 1522.0 1441.5 94.7% Night 713.0 750.5 945.5 820.5 105.3% Day 1134.0 1009.5 1467.5 1700.0 89.0% Night 713.0 794.5 945.5 954.0 111.4% Day 1247.0 1350.7 1711.0 1590.8 108.3% Night 1069.5 978.0 945.5 980.5 91.4% Day 1080.5 1102.5 1232.0 1466.2 102.0% Night 713.0 681.5 713.0 702.5 95.6% Day 1256.3 992.0 521.0 346.5 79.0% Night 1143.0 1037.3 356.5 164.5 90.7% Day 860.0 1037.7 1285.0 602.0 120.7% Night 701.5 678.5 437.0 352.0 96.7% Day 1122.5 995.2 1301.0 1377.0 88.7% Night 702.0 656.5 713.0 552.0 93.5% Day 1083.7 980.4 1749.5 1649.0 90.5% Night 977.5 805.5 713.0 724.5 82.4% Day 1021.0 1277.2 1799.3 1700.8 125.1% Night 1058.8 932.3 701.5 839.5 88.1% Day 1061.9 1049.9 1782.5 1866.0 98.9% Night 1046.5 943.0 713.0 782.0 90.1% Day 742.5 742.5 1354.5 1679.5 100.0% Night 701.5 708.5 1069.5 1092.5 101.0% Day 1079.7 1041.6 1841.2 1829.0 96.5% Night 1069.5 874.0 713.0 805.0 81.7% Day 1080.8 1063.0 1768.8 1910.3 98.4% Night 1070.5 932.5 713.0 736.0 87.1% Unregistered staff % Filled 119.5% 165.0% 226.0% Shift N/A 100.9% Shift N/A 82.1% 106.5% 167.9% 118.4% 67.1% 82.3% 140.9% 196.8% 137.0% 167.7% 205.1% 111.3% 130.5% 124.2% 141.1% 91.9% 233.4% 121.2% 95.9% 122.6% 113.4% 156.0% 94.3% 91.8% 94.7% 86.8% 115.8% 100.9% 93.0% 103.7% 119.0% 98.5% 66.5% 46.1% 46.8% 80.5% 105.8% 77.4% 94.3% 101.6% 94.5% 119.7% 104.7% 109.7% 124.0% 102.2% 99.3% 112.9% 108.0% 103.2% CHPPD Registered midwives/ nurses CHPPD Care Staff 5.0 5.1 8.0 1.2 10.4 3.9 6.2 3.8 5.0 3.6 26.3 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.4 4.8 4.0 4.1 3.6 8.1 4.2 3.5 3.2 4.1 3.4 7.9 7.5 3.2 3.4 3.4 4.3 2.7 3.9 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.8 16.6 4.2 9.8 5.4 3.3 3.9 3.5 4.6 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.9 3.5 6.6 2.6 3.5 2.9 3.8 CHPPD Overall 10.0 9.2 14.2 10.0 8.6 30.1 7.2 7.2 8.8 7.7 12.3 6.6 7.5 15.5 6.6 7.7 6.6 5.9 7.0 20.8 15.2 7.2 8.1 6.2 6.9 10.1 6.1 6.7 Comments Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained; additional staff used for enhanced care - Support workers. Safe staffing levels maintained. Staff moved to support other wards; Staffing appropriate for number of patients. Staff moved to support other wards; Staffing appropriate for number of patients. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained; additional staff used for enhanced care - Support workers. Safe staffing levels maintained. Beds flexed to match staffing. Beds flexed to match staffing. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Additional staff used for enhanced care Support workers. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Additional staff used for enhanced care Support workers. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Additional staff used for enhanced care Support workers; Additional staff working in this area due to covid restrictions. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Additional staff used for enhanced care Support workers. Safe staffing levels maintained; Additional staff used for enhanced care - Support workers. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Additional staff used for enhanced care Support workers. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Staffing appropriate for number of patients. Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Staffing appropriate for number of patients. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Beds flexed to match staffing; Safe staffing levels maintained; Covid testing zone requiring additional staffing. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Beds flexed to match staffing; Safe staffing levels maintained; Covid testing zone requiring additional staffing. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained. Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained; Additional staff used for enhanced care Support workers. Additional staff used for enhanced care - RNs; Safe staffing levels maintained. Additional staff used for enhanced care - RNs; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Safe staffing levels maintained. Beds flexed to match staffing; Staff moved to support other wards; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Beds flexed to match staffing; Staff moved to support other wards; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Beds flexed to match staffing; Safe staffing levels maintained. Beds flexed to match staffing; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained; Beds flexed to match staffing. Staff moved to support other wards; Safe staffing levels maintained; Beds flexed to match staffing. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Additional staff used for enhanced care - Support workers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Additional staff used for enhanced care - Support workers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. Page 23 of 24 Nursing and midwifery staffing hours - Aug 2020 Report notes Our staffing levels are monitored daily and we will risk assess and fill any gaps to ensure that safe staffing levels are always maintained The total hours planned is our planned staffing levels to deliver care across all of our areas but does not represent a baseline safe staffing level. We plan for an average of one registered nurse to every five or seven patients in most of our areas but this can change as we regularly review the care requirements of our patients and adjust our staffing accordingly. Staffing on intensive care and high dependency units is always adjusted depending on the number of patients being cared for and the level of support they require. Therefore the numbers will fluctuate considerably across the month when compared against our planned numbers. Enhanced Care (also known as Specialling) Occurs when patients in an area require more focused care than we would normally expect. In these cases extra, unplanned staff are assigned to support a ward. If enhanced care is required the ward may show as being over filled. If a ward has an unplanned increase or decrease in bed availability the ward may show as being under or over filled, even though it remains safely and appropriately staffed. CHPPD (Care Hours Per Patient Day) This is a measure which shows on average how many hours of care time each patient receives on a ward /department during a 24 hour period from registered nurses and support staff - this will vary across wards and departments based on the specialty, interventions, acuity and dependency levels of the patients being cared for. The maternity workforce consists of teams of midwives who work both within the hospital and in the community offering an integrated service and are able to respond to women wherever they choose to give birth. This means that our ward staffing and hospital birth environments have a core group of staff but the numbers of actual midwives caring for women increases responsively during a 24 hour period depending on the number of women requiring care. During the last 2 weeks in March and beyond a number of our clinical areas started to change specialty and size to respond to the COVID-19 situation (e.g G5-G9, Critical Care and RHDU). Repurposing of wards to respond to the COVID-19 social distancing recommendations and to enable the separation and restart of services continues with changes sometimes being swift in nature. The data may in some cases not be fully reflective of these changes. Paediatric high dependency unit Paediatric high dependency unit Paediatric medical unit Paediatric medical unit Paediatric intensive care unit Paediatric intensive care unit Piam Brown ward Piam Brown ward E1 E1 G2 G2 G3 G3 G4 G4 Bramshaw women's unit Bramshaw women's unit Neonatal unit Neonatal unit Maternity service Maternity service Cardiac high dependency unit Cardiac high dependency unit Coronary care unit Coronary care unit D4 D4 E2 E2 E3 Green E3 Green E3 Blue E3 Blue E4 E4 Acute stroke unit Acute stroke unit Regional transfer unit Regional transfer unit E Neuro E Neuro Hyper acute stroke unit Hyper acute stroke unit D neuro D neuro SPI F4 Neuro SPI F4 Neuro Brooke ward Brooke ward Trauma Assessment Unit Trauma Assessment Unit F1 F1 F2 F2 F3 F3 F4 F4 Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night 1627.5 1069.5 1835.4 1707.5 6762.1 5697.8 3695.9 1415.1 2068.0 1380.0 759.3 744.0 2410.6 1705.0 2429.0 1705.0 1120.0 713.0 6894.9 5439.5 8456.9 5383.8 4548.2 3653.1 1412.2 1331.8 1756.2 820.0 1721.2 704.0 1574.8 704.0 1181.7 665.0 1652.1 1100.5 1518.5 1023.0 773.0 682.0 1975.5 1364.0 1564.0 1358.0 1941.0 1364.5 1817.4 1089.0 1171.2 1069.5 535.5 341.0 2428.4 1781.8 1655.7 1023.0 1606.3 1023.3 1470.0 1023.0 1320.0 1162.5 2753.9 2438.4 4695.4 4443.2 2723.0 1178.6 1523.8 1193.8 780.1 793.0 1683.9 1350.8 1994.5 1324.5 1047.3 712.5 4472.4 3814.3 7597.2 4577.8 3991.0 3358.8 1864.8 1613.0 1425.2 780.3 1057.2 706.0 1394.2 682.0 975.7 621.0 1320.7 1069.0 1520.0 880.0 729.5 506.0 1719.0 1265.0 1181.5 924.0 1831.8 1310.0 1254.7 924.0 917.5 736.0 648.7 617.3 1980.8 1736.9 1455.8 803.0 1320.0 869.3 1364.2 860.3 0.0 0.0 352.2 680.5 726.2 587.8 93.0 0.0 620.0 371.3 0.0 0.0 1691.0 1023.0 1188.0 682.0 656.5 345.0 1551.0 1353.0 3137.4 2046.0 2233.7 1366.0 1089.0 968.0 1057.5 1012.0 866.4 341.0 1398.5 788.3 1150.5 682.0 1285.9 396.0 2674.5 1705.0 387.5 330.0 1031.0 1021.5 397.5 319.0 2033.5 1715.0 1143.0 1043.0 600.3 356.5 313.6 341.0 1936.3 1755.3 2000.5 1375.3 1791.2 1364.3 1217.2 693.8 81.1% Shift N/A 92.0 15.6 0.6 Non-ward based staff supporting areas; Safe staffing levels maintained. 16.2 108.7% 0.0 Shift N/A Safe staffing levels maintained. 150.0% 182.0% Additional beds open in the month; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained. 640.9 21.0 5.5 26.5 713.5 142.8% 104.8% Additional beds open in the month; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained. 269.0 472.8 69.4% 78.0% 37.0% 80.4% Beds flexed to match staffing. 39.1 3.2 42.2 Beds flexed to match staffing. 158.5 73.7% 170.4% 12.4 0.5 Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. 12.9 83.3% 0.0 Shift N/A Beds flexed to match staffing; Safe staffing levels maintained. 641.0 73.7% 103.4% 7.8 Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Non-ward based staff supporting areas; Safe staffing levels maintained. 3.6 11.4 614.8 86.5% 165.6% Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. 102.7% Shift N/A 0.0 12.0 0.0 Safe staffing levels maintained. 12.0 106.6% 0.0 Shift N/A Safe staffing levels maintained. 791.0 69.9% 46.8% 8.4 Non-ward based staff supporting areas; Safe staffing levels maintained; Beds flexed to match staffing. 3.6 12.0 532.5 79.2% 52.1% Beds flexed to match staffing; Safe staffing levels maintained. 885.5 82.1% 74.5% 8.4 Non-ward based staff supporting areas; Safe staffing levels maintained; Beds flexed to match staffing. 3.7 12.1 583.0 77.7% 85.5% Beds flexed to match staffing; Safe staffing levels maintained. 609.0 93.5% 92.8% Safe staffing levels maintained. 8.1 4.4 12.6 345.0 99.9% 100.0% Safe staffing levels maintained. 1605.5 64.9% 103.5% 10.7 3.3 Staffing flexed to match bed numbers. 14.0 946.0 70.1% 69.9% Staffing flexed to match bed numbers. 2498.7 89.8% 79.6% Safe staffing levels maintained. 5.3 1.9 7.2 1770.8 85.0% 86.5% Safe staffing levels maintained. 1394.4 803.0 87.7% 91.9% 62.4% 58.8% Staff moved to support other wards; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Band 4 staff working to support 19.0 5.7 24.7 registered nurse numbers. Staff moved to support other wards; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers. 132.0% 81.1% Additional beds open in the month; Staff moved to support other wards; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the 883.5 9.5 4.6 14.1 Unit. 814.0 121.1% 84.1% Additional beds open in the month; Staff moved to support other wards; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit. 81.2% 139.7% Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained; Support workers used to maintain staffing 1477.8 4.4 4.9 9.3 numbers. 95.2% 92.9% Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained; Support workers used to maintain staffing 940.0 numbers. 61.4% 163.7% Staffing appropriate for number of patients; Staff moved to support other wards; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse 1418.5 3.9 4.7 8.6 numbers. 687.4 100.3% 201.6% Staffing appropriate for number of patients; Staff moved to support other wards; Increased night staffing to support raised acuity. 1381.3 88.5% 98.8% 3.8 Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. 4.0 7.8 801.3 96.9% 101.6% Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Safe staffing levels maintained. 1119.0 781.0 1192.9 748.0 2645.5 1815.0 234.5 396.0 1594.5 1439.5 495.0 427.8 1668.0 1550.5 1435.5 1197.0 585.8 563.5 827.6 660.0 2307.9 1852.0 2242.3 1572.3 2170.0 1486.0 1033.7 915.5 82.6% 93.4% 79.9% 97.1% 100.1% 86.0% 94.4% 74.2% 87.0% 92.7% 75.5% 68.0% 94.4% 96.0% 69.0% 84.8% 78.3% 68.8% 121.1% 181.0% 81.6% 97.5% 87.9% 78.5% 82.2% 84.9% 92.8% 84.1% 97.3% 114.5% 92.8% 188.9% 98.9% 106.5% 60.5% 120.0% 154.7% 140.9% 124.5% 134.1% 82.0% 90.4% 125.6% 114.8% 97.6% 158.1% 263.9% 193.5% 119.2% 105.5% 112.1% 114.3% 121.1% 108.9% 84.9% 132.0% Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month. 4.1 4.8 8.9 Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Staffing appropriate for number of patients; Support workers used to maintain 5.8 4.7 10.6 staffing numbers. Additional staff used for enhanced care - Support workers; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to 3.1 5.7 8.7 maintain staffing numbers. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Low bed numbers but staff on roster being used in neuro swabbing hub making it look like working on ward in 18.2 9.3 27.4 report. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 5.9 6.0 11.8 1:1 nursing in the month. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 14.0 6.2 20.2 1:1 nursing in the month. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to 5.8 5.9 11.8 maintain staffing numbers. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 5.3 6.4 11.6 1:1 nursing in the month. Band 4 staff working to support registered nurse numbers; Support workers used to maintain staffing numbers; Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month. Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Staff moved to support other wards; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe 5.2 3.6 8.8 staffing across the Unit. Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Staff moved to support other wards; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit. Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; This ward has a high number of admissions and acuity/dependency of patients 8.7 10.3 19.0 which means more Registered nurse and support workers are required. Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; This ward has a high number of admissions and acuity/dependency of patients which means more Registered nurse and support workers are required. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to 4.5 5.1 9.6 support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to 3.2 5.3 8.5 support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to 3.9 6.5 10.3 support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to 4.5 3.9 8.4 support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Patient requiring 24 hour 1:1 nursing in the month; Safe staffing levels maintained by sharing staff resource; Skill mix swaps undertaken to support safe staffing across the Unit; Staff moved to support other wards. Page 24 of 24 2.5.1 Access Targets: Cancer Trajectory Update for review 1 Access Targets: Cancer Trajectory Update Report to the Trust Board of Directors dated 29 September 2020 Title: Agenda item: Sponsor: Date: Purpose Issue to be addressed: Response to the issue: Access Targets: Cancer Trajectory Update 2.5.1 Joe Teape, Chief Operating Officer 16 September 2020 Assurance Approval or reassurance Ratification Information Yes To provide an update to Trust Board on cancer performance following the last report that went to Trust Board in March 2020 and the impact of Covid19 on performance. The report provides an update on UHS cancer performance and covers the following; • Current performance against the key cancer metrics • Challenges faced during Covid-19 and impact on demand • Changes made in managing patients on a cancer pathway Implications: (Clinical, Organisational, Governance, Legal?) Clinical Organisational Governance and risk Risks: (Top 3) of carrying out the change / or not: The top 3 risks are: • Inability to meet required cancer standard targets • Inability to manage cancer patients during a Covid-19 pandemic • Risk of increase in cancer referrals of patients whose cancer may have spread so that the cancer will be harder to treat or no longer be curative Summary: Conclusion and/or recommendation The Trust Board is asked to consider the recent cancer performance and note the impact of COVID 19 has had on activity/demand and performance. The Board is asked to note whilst we have seen improvements in performance since April 2020 there remain significant risks to achievement and further work is being undertaken to develop mitigations & assess the impact of improving referral times from other organizations which impact on UHS. Page 1 of 7 1. Introduction/Background In March 2020 Trust Board was provided with an update on cancer performance and plans on acti
Url: /Media/UHS-website-2019/Docs/About-the-Trust/Trust-governance-and-corporate-docs/2020/papers-sept-2020-held-in-closed-session-due-to-covid-19.pdf

Engaging for increased research participation - full report

Description: Engaging for increased research participation Public and healthcare professionals' perceptions For further information contact: Chris Stock Head of R&D communications and strategy University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust T: 07795506319 / E: christopher.stock@uhs.nhs.uk Ben Hickman Research director Alterline Research T: 01616050862 / E: ben.hickman@alterline.co.uk This report presents independent research funded in part by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network: Wessex. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Contents 1. Executive summary 1.1. Headline findings and recommendations 1.1.1.People are positive about research and participation 1.1.2. The critical conversations are not happening 1.1.3 Healthcare professionals perceive major barriers to involvement 1.1.4 The public need information, of immediate relevance to their health 1.1.5 Time and fitting participation into life is a concern 2. Introduction and Methodology 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Key objectives 2.3. This report 2.4. Method 3. Review of the literature 3.1. General background 3.2. Why do people take part in clinical research? 3.3. What stops people from taking part in clinical research? 3.4. Why do people take part, or not take part, in related activities? 3.5. Summary 4. Likelihood to participate in clinical research 4.1. The public view clinical research as important 4.1.1. Demographic Differences 4.2. Few people have been asked to take part in clinical research 4.3. Likelihood to participate 4.3.1. Demographic differences 4.4. Likelihood to participate in various types of research 5. Motivations for taking part 5.1. Why do other people take part in clinical research? 5.2. What would motivate you to take part? 5.2.1. Demographic differences 5.3. Exploring motivations in more depth 6. Barriers to taking part 6.1. Why don't other people take part? 6.2. What stops you from taking part? 6.2.1. Demographic differences 6.3. Exploring barriers in more depth 6.4. What do people mean by the `risks' involved? 6.5. How are people forming opinions about risk? 6.6. What might reassure people? 7. The experience of taking part in clinical research 7.1.What motivated people to take part? 7.2. Would people recommend the experience? 7.3. Why would people recommend the experience? 7.4. Why would people not recommend the experience? 7.5. Knowing someone who has taken part 7.6. Why would people be more likely to take part, knowing someone who has? 7.7. Why would people be less likely to take part, having known someone who has? 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 11 12 12 12 14 15 15 16 18 18 18 19 19 22 22 22 24 24 26 27 28 29 29 29 29 31 31 31 32 Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 2 8. Knowledge and information 8.1. Level of understanding of clinical research 8.1.1. Demographic differences 8.2. Seeking information 8.3. What information would you need? 8.4. Media coverage 9. Healthcare professionals' perceptions of clinical research 9.1. What do healthcare professionals think of clinical research? 9.2. Who do they think are getting involved in research? 10. Motivations for getting involved in clinical research 10.1. What motivates healthcare professionals to get involved? 11. Barriers to getting involved in clinical research 11.1. What stops healthcare professionals from getting involved? 12. Research opportunities 12.1. Approaching healthcare professionals 12.2. Why are healthcare professionals approaching patients? 12.3. Why are healthcare professionals not approaching patients? 13. Availability of information 13.1. Awareness of clinical research 13.2. Finding information about clinical research 14. The future 14.1.What would make you more likely to get involved in research in the future? 14.2.What would make you more likely to get speak to patients the future? 15. Conclusions and recommendations 15.1. People are positive about research and participation 15.2. The critical conversations are not happening 15.2.1. Recommendation 1 15.3. Healthcare professionals perceive major barriers to involvement 15.3.1. Recommendation 2 15.4. The public need information, of immediate relevance to their health 15.4.1. Recommendation 3 15.5.Time and fitting participation into life is a concern 15.5.1. Recommendation 4 Appendix 1 ? Public survey demographics 33 33 33 34 34 35 37 37 38 39 39 41 41 43 43 44 44 45 45 46 47 47 48 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 51 52 Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 3 1. Executive summary See section 15 for summary findings and specific recommendations for increasing clinical research participation. 1.1.1 People are positive about research and participation The Wessex population views research in the NHS positively and a large proportion are open to participating: 90% of respondents think that it is important for the NHS to support research into new treatments, whilst 47% think it likely they would be willing to participate in clinical trials in the future. Those that have participated have positive perceptions, and they will likely have a significant influence on others' future participation: 80% of people who have taken part in clinical research would recommend taking part to a friend or family member, whilst around half (44%) of people who know someone who has taken part in clinical research said that they are more likely to participate now because of their experience. 1.1.2 The critical conversations are not happening Only 15% have had clinical research discussed with them by a healthcare professional in their lifetime, whilst only 5% of those who have seen healthcare professional in the last 12 months had clinical research discussed with them. Recommendation 1: Communications supporting participation in interventional trials should be focussed on enabling effective clinical conversations, with a reduced emphasis on broad public awareness approaches. 1.1.3 Healthcare professionals perceive major barriers to involvement The healthcare professionals interviewed were broadly positive about research; however they cite workload, time and lack of local trial information as constraints on discussion of research with patients. Better trial information was also identified as something that would increase the likelihood of discussing trial options with patients. Clinicians self-segregate themselves into `researchers' (an academically orientated minority) and `practitioners', with the latter positive about the benefits of clinical research and open to research referrals/facilitation but unlikely to have direct involvement in, or lead their own, research. Direct involvement in research by clinicians is limited by lack of programmed/sanctioned time within work plans, perceptions of excessive bureaucracy and lack of support. Recommendation 2: Local Clinical Research Networks, local research infrastructure and Trusts' senior leadership should support NHS clinicians' engagement with local clinical trials, and to explore management and education interventions to make communication with patients about trials a routine part of all NHS consultations. 1.1.4 The public need information, of immediate relevance to their health Public participation motivations centred on potential benefits to one's own health or that of close friends and family, whilst perceived risk of harm and receiving the `unknown' alongside concerns over time commitments and time off work were the biggest barriers to participation. Only 9% of respondents reported that they felt they understood clinical research very well, with this group the least likely to agree that risk was a significant barrier to participation. Generic online searches, condition-specific online sources of information and healthcare professionals were the primary sources of information, with a high degree of trust in the information provided by professionals. Recommendation 3: Public communications and engagement should have a greater emphasis on informing and empowering people at the point of care or enquiry, to enable discussion of trials with clinicians. Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 4 1.1.5 Time and fitting participation into life is a concern Concerns over time commitments needed to participate in studies, including taking time out of work and fitting such activity into daily/family life were significant barriers to participation. Recommendation 4: Changes to clinical research delivery to improve convenience and flexibility for participants, alongside interventions that lower the practical threshold to participation should be investigated and evaluated. Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 5 2. Introduction and Methodology 2.1 Introduction The partnership between University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHS) and the University of Southampton enables clinical-academics to perform clinical research through quality assured support, facilities and resources embedded at the heart of a major teaching hospital trust. This partnership hosts, and participates in the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network Wessex (NIHR CRN:Wessex), one of 15 regional CRNs that coordinate and support clinical trial activity across the UK on behalf of the NIHR. Participation in clinical research by the public, patients and clinicians is essential to advancing medicine and care, and access to such trials is a right conferred to patients under the NHS constitution1. Because of this, recruitment to trials is the primary measure by which NIHR manages performance of CRNs and their member organisations. Rapid, complete recruitment to open trials remains challenging for Trusts and CRNs nationwide, indicating a significant issue relating to public and patient engagement with trial treatment options and research participation. Against this background UHS, with match-funding from NIHR CRN:Wessex, commissioned Alterline Research Ltd. to conduct a programme of market research to better understand the perceptions, motivations and barriers to participation in clinical research across the region. This research is intended to inform more effective communication and engagement aimed at increasing participation, primarily focussed on interventional clinical research. 2.2 Key objectives The research was conducted with three audiences: ? The public (18 years and older across all demographics and geographies) ? Primary care professionals including GPs and community nurses across the region. ? Hospital clinical staff including consultants, nurses, midwives and allied health professionals across the region's trusts. The research outputs are intended to provide an evidence base to help: ? ? ? ? Shape and inform effective engagement strategies with these audiences Build an evaluation framework against which engagement can be assessed and developed for greater efficacy Ensure coherence and commonality in engagement approaches and messages across Wessex Provide a reference point and baseline data for long-term tracking and evaluation. 2.3 This report This report details findings of the research with the public and healthcare professionals, exploring their attitudes towards clinical research, their likelihood to participate and the drivers and barriers to increasing participation and recommending actions for increasing research participation. > > > 1 NHS Constitution, 2013 http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Documents/2013/the-nhs-constitution-forengland-2013.pdf Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 6 2.4 Method Review of literature and pilot A review of the existing literature was conducted to help inform the design of research materials including the quantitative and qualitative questionnaires. Quantitative questionnaire development A questionnaire comprising predominantly closed questions and a small number of open-ends was developed in partnership with the Trust. Quantitative public survey by telephone In total 1101 interviews were completed by telephone using specialist computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) software and an automated dialler system. The interview sample for the telephone survey was sourced from a specialist data provider using relevant postcodes. In order to ensure a representative survey sample of the Wessex population interview completions were monitored by key demographics such as gender, age and location. See appendix one for details of the demographic sample. Public depth survey Following the quantitative survey, key emerging themes were used develop a qualitative, in-depth survey which was administered by telephone. In total, 30 people took part in in-depth interviews including a mix of men and women, different ages and geographies. Clinician depth survey To explore perceptions, motivations and barriers of clinicians, an in-depth survey was designed and administered by telephone. In total, 25 healthcare professionals took part in the survey, including 6 GPs, 10 nurses, and 9 hospital consultants. Analysis The quantitative survey data was exported to SPSS (Statistical Packages for Social Sciences) where it was quality checked. Frequencies and cross-tabulations exploring differences between respondents were produced and key questions were charted and included in this report. Demographic differences have been included in this report following the application of tests of statistical significance. Open-ended data was themed, with key verbatim quotes pulled out and included in the report. The in-depth interviews were audio recorded and transcriptions were made. Key themes were identified from the focus group transcripts and representative verbatim quotes have been pulled out and included in the report. Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 7 3. Review of the literature 3.1 General background Clinical research is central to advancing medicine, developing and evaluating medications, treatments, and practices. The purpose of this review is to examine perceptions of clinical research, willingness to participate and motivations and barriers to taking part. As the research in the area is limited, it will also look at motivations and barriers to taking part in related, voluntary activities (i.e. giving blood and organ donation) in order to identify any commonalities. Generally, reports in the literature show support for clinical research to be high. The Wellcome Trust notes that 95% of adults and 93% of 13-18 year olds think that medical research should be supported2. Further 88% of those surveyed by the National Institutes of Health3 in the USA think that clinical trials are important for advancing knowledge about treating disease. A 2011 UK national survey of 990 adults by IPSOS-MORI, commissioned by the Association of Medical Research Charities, reported similarly strong public support for research with 97% believing the NHS should support research into new treatments, whilst 93% wanted their local NHS to be encouraged or required to support research. These figures are corroborated by a 2014 national survey of 3,000 adults commissioned by the National Institute for Health research, indicating that 95% of people said it was important to them that the NHS carries out clinical research4.5. Reported willingness to participate in research is also strong. In a monitor of people's views on science and research, 60% said they would be willing to take part in clinical trials6. 72% of those polled in the 2011 AMRC survey would want to be offered opportunities to be involved in trials of new medicines or treatments if they suffered from a health condition that affects their day-to-day life; 80% would consider allowing a researcher confidential access to their medical records, and 88% would be happy to be asked to talk to researchers about their family history or give a sample of their blood for laboratory testing. 89% of people surveyed in the 2014 NIHR national survey would be willing to take part in clinical research if they were diagnosed with a medical condition or disease, with only 3% saying they would not consider it at all5. Comis et al7 report that, in relation to cancer trials, 32% of adults would be willing to take part and 38% would potentially be interested, but would hold some reservations. Further, willingness to participate is not static and much depends on the nature of the trial. For example, 74% of people would be willing to allow access to their medical records, whereas only 30% would be willing to test a new drug2. These figures showing positive perception and willingness to participate are however in stark contrast to reported and actual participation rates. In two monitors by the Wellcome Trust, lifetime participation varied from 10%6 to 23%2, whilst a further 10% of people have a family member who has taken part6. These findings support National Institute for Health Research official figures indicating that annual recruitment to clinical trials in the English NHS stands at 0.94% of the English population (2013-14 figures)8, with CRN Wessex reporting recruitment of 1.15% of the regional population in the same period9. > > > Butt, S., Clery, E., Abeywardana, V., Phillips, M. (National Centre for Social Research). Wellcome Trust Monitor 1. London: Wellcome Trust; 2010 National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. (1997). Results from Quarterly Omnibus Survey: Clinical Trials Questions-April 22, 1997. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute. 4 IPSOS-MORI / Association of Medical research Cahrities J11-02572 Public support for research in the NHS, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/ researchpublications/researcharchive/2811/Public-support-for-research-in-the-NHS.aspx 5 National Institute for Health Research, 2014, http://www.crn.nihr.ac.uk/blog/news/nine-out-of-ten-people-would-be-willing-to-take-part-inclinical-research/ 6 Clemence, M., Gilby, N., Shah, J., Swiecicka, J., Warren, D. (2013). Wellcome Trust Monitor Wave 2: Tracking public views on science, biomedical research and science education. London: Wellcome Trust. 7 Comis, R.L., Miller, J.D., Aldige, C.R., Krebs, L. and Stoval, E. (2003). Attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 21: 830-835. 2 3 Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 8 3.2 Why do people take part in clinical research? By far, the most reported reason for taking part in clinical research in the literature was a sense of altruism and helping others. Mattson et al10, found that 65% of participants took part for altruistic reasons. Rosenbaum et al11 noted that 46% of people who participated in clinical research reported altruism as the reasons for doing so. Of those people, just under half (45%) provided an altruistic reason as their only motivation. Those who gave altruistic reasons were more likely to have higher levels of social support, have a college education, and were less likely to say they had a disability. Specifically in cancer trials, altruism is often reported as a reason for taking part12. Jenkins et al13 report that 23% of those who consented to take part in clinical research did so because others would benefit from their participation. Many people also said that they took part because of healthcare professionals. Some report that this was because of a recommendation from their doctor3 and others report that it was through the doctor's influence that they decided to take part14. Jenkins et al13 looked solely at people who had decided to take part after being asked by their doctor. Of those who were asked, 72% decided to take part, of which 21% said it was because they trust their doctor. Further, it is apparent that some people also take part in clinical research because of the benefit that it will have to them. Such motivations include a hoping that there will be a therapeutic benefit or because there is no other treatment available12. Further, in Mattson et al10 74% of participants for aspirin and beta-blocker trials said they were motivated by non-altruistic motivations. These motivations included better medical monitoring and reassurance, physical improvement and preventions of further illness. 3.3 What stops people from taking part in clinical research? A concern about side effects and risks present a significant barrier to participation in the literature. Looking into cancer trials, a fear of making the cancer worse presented a significant barrier when being asked to participate15. Further, when testing a new drug, 93% of those with concerns in the Wellcome Trust study said they were worried about the possible risk to their own health from participating2. As with many factors, concerns about the side effects and risks of a trial are not stable across all groups. Basche et al16 spoke to seniors who were asked to participate in cancer trials. They found that those ages 65?75 were more likely to participate in the trial when the side effects were likely, than those aged over 75. Further, many studies report that issues related to the time commitment of clinical research and logistical difficulties also present a significant constraint on participation. A quarter of people asked about their attitudes to participation in clinical research said that they did not have the time to participate17. Further, a third of people in Basche et al16 said that they were concerned about the time commitment and other issues, such as getting to the trial facility. Many other barriers have been reported in the literature. These include: a dislike of randomisation13 and the potential to be in a placebo group; lack of knowledge of both the processes involved in clinical research19 and the trials that are available18, and a lack of trust in medical research19. > > > NIHR Clinical Research Network Annual Report 2013/14 http://www.crn.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/About%20the%20CRN/13_14%20Annual%20Performance%20Report_PUBLIC_FV.pdf 9 CRN Wessex Performance Report May2014, www.odp.nihr.ac.uk/default.htm 10 Mattson, M.E., Curb, J.D., and McArdle, R. (1985). Participation in a clinical trial: The patients' point of view. Controlled Clinical Trials. 6: 156-167 11 Rosenbaum, J.R., Wells, C.K., Viscoli, C.M., Brass, L.M., Kernan, W.N., and Horwitz, R.I. (2005). Altruism as a reason for participation in clinical trials was independently associated with adherence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 58: 1109-1114. 12 National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Working Group on Enhancing Recruitment to Early Phase Cancer Clinical Trials. (2004). Enhancing Recruitment to Early Phase Cancer Clinical Trials: Literature Review. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute. 13 Jenkins, V. and Fallowfield, L. (2000). Reasons for accepting or declining to participate in randomised clinical trials for cancer therapy. British Journal of Cancer. 82(11): 1783-1788. 14 Chu, S.H., Jeong, S.H., Kim, E.J., Park, M.S., Park, K., Nam, M., Shim, J.Y., and Yoon, Y. (2012). The views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials: An exploratory survey study. Contemporary Clinical Trial. 33: 611-619 15 Solomon, M.J., Pager, C.K., Young, J.M., Roberts, R., and Butow, P. (2003). Patient entry into randomized controlled trials of colorectal cancer treatment: Factors influencing participation. Surgery. 133(6): 608-613. 16 Basche, M., Baron, A.E., Eckhardt, S.G., Balducci, L., Persky, M., Levin, A., Jackson, N., Zeng, C., Brna, P., and Steiner, J.F. (2008). Barriers to enrollement of elderly adults in early-phase cancer clinical trials. American Society of Clinical Oncology. 4(4): 162-168 8 Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 9 Although little literature looks into healthcare professionals' motivations regarding clinical research, several have looked at the barriers to getting involved. The research suggests that concerns for patients represent significant barriers to participation. In in-depth interviews with clinicians in South-west England, clinicians suggested that concerns for individual patients and respect for patients' preferences for different treatments prevented them from approaching patients and getting involved20. Further, concern for patients and a worry about the impact on the doctor-patient relationship was shown to be a significant barrier in Ross et al's meta-analysis21. 3.4 Why do people take part, or not take part, in related activities? Many reasons, both similar and dissimilar to those expressed above, are noted in the literature that motivate blood and organ donation. Coad et al22 found that those who knew someone who had donated or received an organ were more likely to agree with donating an organ to a family member or friend. Further, Wildman and Hollingsworth23 note that those who have donated blood before are more likely to donate again. Further, Cohen and Hoffner24 note that self-interest explains motivations to become an organ donor. 40% said they would be willing to sign a blood donor card. Self-interest motivations were the most important predictor of willingness to sign the card, including pride and satisfaction with the decision, otherwise known as the `warm glow' feeling. A questionnaire of university students in Japan showed that being in good health, having time to donate, being given opportunity to donate and helping others were the most important motivations for those who both had given blood before and those who had not25. The same study also looked at barriers to taking part. These were very much the opposite of the motivators, and included having time to donate, not knowing when and where to donate and not being given the opportunity to donate were considered barriers to taking part25. Lack of knowing where to go and it not being in a convenient place was corroborated by a further study of American adults, as well as a fear of needles and pain26. 3.5 Summary In summary, although many people believe that clinical research is important and are willing to take part, this is not reflected in rates of participation. Reasons why people take part in clinical research include altruism, the influence of a healthcare professional and a benefit to themselves. Major barriers to participation include the risk to themselves and time commitments. Clinician barriers generally revolve around a concern for their patients. Significantly different motivators and barriers to taking part in related activities include knowing someone who has taken part, taking part before and knowing what opportunities were available. > > > Bevan, E.G., Chee, L.C., McGhee, S.M. and McInnes, G.T. (1993). Patients' attitudes to participation in clinical trails. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 35(2): 204-207 18 Mills, E.J., Seely, D., Rachlis, B., Griffith, L., Wu, P., Wilson, K., Ellis, P., and Wright, J.R. (2006). Barriers to participation in clinical trials of cancer: a meta-analysis and systematic review of patient-reported factors. Lancet Oncol. 7: 141-148 19 Lovato, L.C. and Kristin, H. (1997). Recruitment for controlled clinical trials: Literature summary and annotate bibliography. Controlled Clinical Trials. 18: 328-357 20 Langley, C., Gray, S., Selley, S., Bowie, C., and Price, C. (2000). Clinicians' attitudes to recruitment to randomised trials in cancer care: A qualitative study. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy. 5(3): 164-169 21 Ross, S., Grant, A., Counsell, C., Gillespie, W., Russell, I., and Prescott, R. (1999). Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 52(12): 1143-1156 22 Coad, L., Carter, N., and Ling, J. (2013). Attitudes of young adults from the UK towards organ donation and transplantation. Transplantation Research. 2: 9-14 23 Wildman, J., and Hollingsworth, B. (2009). Blood donation and the nature of altruism. Journal of Health Economics. 28: 492-503 24 Cohen, E.L. and Hoffner, C. (2012). Gifts of giving: The role of empathy and perceived benefits to others and self in young adults' decisions to become organ donors. Journal of Health Psychology. 18(1): 128-138 25 Ngoma, A.M., Goto, A., Yamazaki, S., Machida, M., Kanno, T., Nollet, K.E., Ohto, H. and Yasumura, S. (2013) Barriers and motivators to blood donation among university students in Japan: Development of a measurement tool. Vox Sanguinis 105(3): 219-224 26 Adelbert, J.B., Schreiber, G.B., Hillyer, C.D., and Shaz, B.H. (2013). Blood donations motivators and barriers: A descriptive study of African American and white voters. Transfusion and Aphresis Science. 48(1): 87-93 17 Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 10 4. Likelihood to participate in clinical research 4.1 The public view clinical research as important To provide a background to people's perceptions of clinical research, we asked respondents to tell us how important they thought it was for the NHS to support research into new treatments. As figure 1 below shows, the overwhelming majority of people (90%) think that it is either important or very important. However, of those who responded to the survey, only 10% have actually taken part in clinical research. There is a clear gap between how important the area is seen to be, and how many people are taking part. Figure 1 g1 How important do you think it is, if at all, for the NHS to support research into new treatments for patients? Base: 1101 3% 6% 13% 77% Very unimportant g3 unimportant Neither important nor unimportant Important Very important 4.1.1 Demographic Differences Age Belief that supporting research is important is lowest in 18-24 year olds (73%). As people get older, they are more likely to believe that it is important, peaking at 96% for 75-84 year olds. Gender Females (95%) a more likely to say supporting research is important than males (85%). Educational attainment Those who have qualifications other than a degree are the most likely to view research as important (97%). Those who have no educational qualifications are least likely (80%). Employment status Students (90%), retired people (83%) and those who are employed (76%) are more likely to see clinical research as important, compared to those who are self-employed (69%), home-makers (67%), or gout of work and not looking for work (55%). 7 Dependents Those with dependents (96%) are more likely to view clinical research as important than those without dependents (90%). Health Those with good (80%) or very good health (80%) are more likely than those with fair (70%) or very bad (54%) to view research as very important. Previous participation Those who have participated in clinical research (99%) are more likely to say supporting research is important than those who have not (89%). g8 Knowing someone who has taken part Those who know someone who has taken part in clinical research (97%) are more likely to see supporting research as important, compared to those who don't (89%). > > > Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 11 g7 g7 4.2 Few people have been asked to take part in clinical research g8 g8 Importantly, of those surveyed, only 15% recalled a time when a healthcare professional had discussed involvement in clinical research with them. Further, of the 43% who had seen a healthcare professional in the last month, only 5% had clinical research discussed with them (Figure 2, below). Figure 2 Did the healthcare professional you saw discuss involvement in clinical research with you? Base: 367 5% Do you recall a time at any point in your life when a healthcare professional has discussed clinical research with you? 15% Base: 799 Yes No 95% Yes No 85% Increasing the number of conversations taking place between clinicians and their patients about clinical research is likely to increase the number of people who take part. In the in-depth interviews, people often said they reason they had not taken part before was because no-one had ever asked. "I just haven't been asked." "No-one's ever asked me." Further, previous research has shown that trust in healthcare professionals is high, with 72% of adults saying that they trust a medical professional to provide them with information about clinical research27. This was also seen in the in-depth interviews, where many respondents expressed a great deal of trust for their doctor. "So if they said `blardy blardy blah', would you take part? Then I probably would have done, because we gained that much trust." g1 "Yes I would trust them if they talked about clinical research because the consultant I've been under for four years now, my GP I've known for over 20 years now so they're people that I've known long enough to trust." 4.3 Likelihood to participate Although only 10% of people have taken part in clinical research, the results would show appetite for participation is higher than this. When respondents were asked if they would consider taking part in clinical research, just under half (47%) agreed that they would be likely or very likely to (Figure 3, below). Figure 3 How likely is it that you would be willing to participate in clinical research in the future? g3 Base: 1101 15% 16% 22% 31% 16% Very unlikely 27 unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely likely Very likely Butt, S., Clery, E., Abeywardana, V., Phillips, M. (National Centre for Social Research). Wellcome Trust Monitor 1. London: Wellcome Trust; 2010 g7 > > > 12 Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 4.3.1 Demographic differences The demographic differences below explore whether some people are more likely than others to participate. Characteristics of people who are more likely to participate include: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Having previously participated (64%) or knowing someone who has (63%) Having a good understanding of clinical research (63%) Students (58%) and those unable to work (63%) Having a degree or equivalent level of education (58%) Registered organ donors (58%) People in very good health (57%) People who do regular volunteer work (55%) People who have given blood (54%) People aged 35-64 (52%). Age People aged 35-64 (52%) are most likely to agree that they would be willing to take part in clinical research, this decreases amongst 25-34s (48%), 16-24s (46%), 65-74s (49%) and in particular 75-84s (32%) and 85+ (12%). Understanding of clinical research Those who have a very good understanding of clinical research (63%) are the most likely to say they would take part in clinical research, followed by those that have some (54%), little (40%) or none (39%). Previous participation Those who have participated before (68%) are more likely to say they would be willing to take part than those who have not (45%). Knowing someone who has taken part People who know someone who has participated in clinical research (63%) are more likely to say that they are willing to take part than those who don't (44%). Educational attainment Those with a degree or a degree equivalent (58%) and those who have other qualifications (52%) are more likely than those with no qualifications (35%) to say they would take part. Employment status Students (66%), those who are unable to work (62%), and those who are employed for wages (52%) are more likely to say they are willing to take part than those who are those who are retired (37%) and out of work and looking (26%). Volunteers Those who give help as a volunteer to clubs or organisations weekly (55%), monthly (53%) or occasionally (54%) are more likely to say they are willing take part than those have volunteered in the last year (46%) and those who give unpaid help on an individual basis (36%). Giving blood People who have previously given blood (54%) are more likely to say they would participate than those who have not given blood (45%). Organ donors Those who are registered as organ donors (58%) are more likely to say they would participate than those who are not (42%). Health Those who have very good (57%), good (49%) and bad health (47%) are more likely to say they are would take part than those who have very fair (35%) or bad health (32%). > > > Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 13 4.4 Likelihood to participate in various types of research To expand on people's likelihood to take part, we asked people about different scenarios they would be willing to take part in. As shown in Figure 4 (below), the scenarios that might improve their own health or care are those in which people were most willing to participate . Likelihood to participate extends to 61% in the scenario where it may help prolong a respondents' own life, or where it is looking at new forms of care and exercise to regain movement after a knee injury. In contrast, the scenarios which people were least willing to take part reflected those which were at earlier stages of the research process. This may be because research into new medications or treatments is seen as riskier. Figure 4 How likely is it you would be willing to take part in clinical research if...? Base: 1101 The study might help prolong or improve your life because you have a condition, significant illness or injury The study is looking at a new form of care and exercises to regain movement after knee injury The study is observing how your condition, illness or injury develops or responds to current treatments, over time The study is looking at how the way care is given affects you and your health (e.g. care at home versus staying in hospital) The study is looking at a new medical device 9% 6% 9% 9% 9% 10% 8% 11% 12% 11% 11% 9% 9% 11% 12% 15% 17% 18% 24% 19% 22% 23% 21% 23% 24% 22% 22% 40% 42% 43% 44% 44% 39% 39% 40% 39% 21% 19% 17% 15% 14% 17% 12% 9% 10% The study is looking at a treatment at a very advanced stage of development The study is looking for healthy volunteers The study is looking at a new vaccination The study is looking at a new drug The study is looking at a treatment in the very early stages of development 11% 19% 25% 35% 10% Very unlikely Unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Very likely Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 14 5. Motivations for taking part 5.1 Why do other people take part in clinical research? In order to understand what motivates people to take part in clinical research, we asked respondents to tell us what they thought motivated other people to take part. The most commonly cited reasons were: ? Helping others/altruism ? A positive impact on their own health ? A personal interest in a particular disease/condition. 5.2 What would motivate you to take part? To look into motivations further, we asked people what would motivate them (rather than others) to take part in clinical research. When people are speaking about their own motivations, they tend to agree more with statements which are related to personal motivations, i.e. helping to improve their own, or a close relative's, health. However, altruistic motivations are still important, with 72% agreeing that they would be motivated by helping others. Respondents also indicated that other things would motivate them, beyond those factors seen earlier. Knowing that aftercare would be available (67%) and an interest in a particular disease (67%) are both seen as important to respondents. Just 32% of respondents said that money would motivate them to take part. Figure 5 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following would motivate you to take part in a clinical trial? Base: 1101 g5 Supporting research into a condition a close family member suffers from A positive impact on my own health Getting access to the latest treatments for a condition I have Helping others by helping to find new treatments Knowing that there would be continued aftercare and follow-up A personal interest in a particular disease / condition I would find the process of being involved interesting Money / financial gain 6% 5% 12% 6% 5% 6% 5% 6% 7% 7% 6% 7% 8% 8% 10% 13% 15% 15% 19% 17% 22% 36% 42% 48% 44% 51% 45% 44% 47% 15% 35% 28% 30% 21% 22% 23% 14% 25% 7% 17% Strongly disagree Disagree g6 Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree > > > Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 15 5.2.1 Demographic differences Understanding of clinical research Those who have no understanding of clinical research (58%) are the least likely to agree that they would be motivated by getting the latest access to treatment for a condition they have. Age 35-44 year olds (76%) are more likely to agree that they would be motivated by helping others by finding new treatments than 16-24 (70%) and 25-34 (64%) year olds. 34-44 (86%), 44-54 (85%) and 55-64 (84%) years olds are more likely to agree that they would be motivated by a positive impact on their own health than 16-24 (64%), 25-34 (70%) and 75-84 (64%) year olds. 35-44 (77%), 45-54 (80%) and 55-64 (78%) year olds are more likely to agree that they would be motivated by getting access to the latest treatment for a condition they have than 16-24 (64%), 25-34 (67%), 75-84 (70%) and 85+ (53%) year olds. Gender Women (80%) are more likely than men (75%) to agree that supporting research into a condition a close family member suffers from would motivate them to take part. Educational attainment Those with a degree of degree equivalent and those with other qualifications are more likely than those who have no qualifications to say they are motivated by helping others by helping to find new treatments, a positive impact on their own health, getting access to the latest treatment for a condition they have and supporting research into a condition a close family member suffers from. Employment status Students (90%) are more likely to agree that they are motivated by helping others by helping to find new treatments than those who are employed (76%), self-employed (70%), retired (66%) and out of work and looking (50%). Employed persons (77%) are more likely to be motived by getting access to the latest treatment for a condition they have than those who are retired (71%). Students (96%) are more likely than any other group to strongly agree that they are motivated by supporting research into a condition a close family member suffers from. 5.3 Exploring motivations in more depth When exploring what would motivate people to take part some clear themes emerged from both the open survey questions and the in-depth interviews,. The key motivations are summarised below. It would have a positive impact on my own health Many felt that they would be motivated to participate because it may have a positive impact on their own health. "I've got a few health problems so I would like to take part to see if there any treatments or information in regards to arthritis that would help me" "I have arthritis - anything new to improve life or find a cure." "Finding a drug that helps me." "If anybody could help me with my lifestyle and my health, I'm in a lot of pain, I'm overweight, so that would help." Although some people who responded did not currently suffer from a condition, they suggested they would be motivated to take part if they did and it would help that condition. "I still think the key motivation for me to do it would be if there was something detrimental to my health or something for my health and well-being to improve my lifestyle." "Of course I would, if I had a condition that required treatment and was offered something that would alleviate that." > > > Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 16 Further, some suggested that they would take part as a last resort if nothing else would help their condition. "If I had something that was as of yet untreatable I'd give it a go, but otherwise no." "If I was in an unfortunate situation of having a life threatening illness then I tend to think you grasp at anything." Altruistic motivations and helping the people around me A willingness to help with clinical research relating to a condition that those close to them suffer from was evident in people's responses. "Because my mother has dementia." "In recent years a lot of people I know have suffered from cancer and arthritis." "I suppose its family history, we have had a run in with cancer so I suppose we would be interested in getting involved." "My son's diabetic, anything that would help." Respondents also suggested that they were motivated by a more general altruistic sense of helping others. "Because I want to help people." "If it helps give people a better life." "It's being out there trying to help somebody that is unable to help themselves." It will help advance medical science Some respondents expressed that they would be likely to take part because it may help improve medicine and medical science. "Because it is interesting and it helps the process of medical science." "I feel if people don't participate then science will not advance, for everyone's benefit." "It is important to help the development of medicine and if people aren't helping then there would be no progress and it wouldn't get anywhere." I would find it interesting Respondents said that they would be motivated to take part in various types of trials because they found it interesting. "I find that really quite interesting, I quite like a bit of psychology myself, I'd like to see what goes on in their heads to make it go one way or the other." "Yeah that's a fascinating thing, it's just so clever!" "I'm quite interested in exercise and diet." "Because it would be interesting to see how your health can be affected by those types of things." > > > Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 17 Because I've taken part before Those who had already taken part in clinical research suggested they would again because of their previous experience. "Previous experience in a clinical trial." "Already have been part of a clinical trial for cancer. So far it is a beneficial experience." "I have already taken part and thought it helped." "I have previously been part of a clinical trial and had a good experience." Money Earning money through participating was a clear motivation for a minority of people. "Depending on what the cash incentive was. I wouldn't participate in it if there was no financial gain because of the dangers behind it." "It would depend what it was in aid of and if it was for money." "If there was a large pay out I would take part." Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 18 6. Barriers to taking part 6.1 Why don't other people take part? We also looked into the barriers to taking part in clinical research. When asked what may stop other people from taking part, respondents mentioned: ? Being worried about the risks ? Lack of knowledge/information ? Lack of time to be involved. 6.2 What stops you from taking part? In order to explore this further, respondents were asked what would stop them personally (rather than others) from taking part. Respondents' answers reflected concerns about the risks involved in clinical research, a lack of knowledge and information, and practical issues with time and having to take time off work. When prompted, it was clear that there were other issues which concerned respondents. For some, the involvement of private drug companies (33%) and stories they have seen in the media (31%) would stop them from taking part in clinical research. Figure 6 To what extent do you agree or disagree that the following would stop you from taking part in a clinical trial? Base: 1101 g6 I'm worried about the risks g5 4% 11% 8% 7% 10% 12% 10% 20% 24% 28% 27% 32% 19% 19% 19% 28% 25% 42% 32% 35% 32% 25% 25% 19% 16% 32% 46% 14% 15% 14% 10% 6% 8% 6% 6% 5% 5% I might need to take time off work I don't have time to participate I don't know enough about clinical trials The involvement of a private drug company Stories I have seen in the media I wouldn't pass the medical screening test 37% 32% 44% 34% 20% 34% My family and friends would disapprove I'm not the type of person the NHS want to participate in clinical trials My religious or moral beliefs 18% 12% 25% 17% 16% 11% 5% Strongly disagree Disagree g9 Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree > > > Engaging for increased research participation ? key findings and recommendations 19 6.2.1 Demographic differences Understanding of clinical research Those who have a very good understanding (41%) are the least likely to agree they are worried about the risks, rising with some understanding (55%), little understanding (60%) and no understanding (62%). Those who have no (50%) or little understanding (48%) are more likely to agree that they don't have the time to take part than those with some (40%) or very good understanding (37%). Age Those aged 85+ (70%) are the most likely to say that not knowing enough about clinical research stops them from taking part. Those ages 75-84 (43%) and 85+ (59%) are the most likely to think that they are not the type of people the NHS want to take part. Gender Women (62%) are more likely to say that a worry about the risks would stop them from participating than men (52%). Women (48%) are also more likely to worry about needing time of work than men (43%). Educational attainment Those with no qualifications are least likely to agree that they are worried about the risks of participating (50%), that they don't have the time to participate (39%), and that they may need to take time off work (33%). However, this group are the most likely to agree (27%) that they are not the type of person the NHS wants to participate. Employment status Those who are unable to work are least likely to agre
Url: /Media/Southampton-Clinical-Research/Marketresearch/Engaging-for-increased-research-participation-full-report-v2.pdf

1 to 9 of 9

Browse site A to Z

Search results

Needle phobia

Papers Trust Board - 13 January 2026

Quality account 24-25 final

Papers Trust Board 27 May 2021

Preaching to patients

UHS AR 23-24 Final

Annual report 2021-2022

Papers Sept 2020 held in closed session due to Covid-19

Engaging for increased research participation - full report

Site policies

Contact details

Useful links