BackgroundSchwartz Center Rounds®(Rounds) were introduced into the UK in 2009 to support health-care staff to deliver compassionate care, something the Francis report (Francis R.Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013) identified as lacking. Rounds are organisation-wide forums that prompt reflection and discussion of the emotional, social and ethical challenges of health-care work, with the aim of improving staff well-being and patient care.ObjectivesHow, in which contexts and for whom Rounds participation affects staff well-being at work, increases social support for staff and improves patient care.Design(1) A scoping review of Rounds literature and comparison with alternative interventions; (2) mapping Rounds providers via a survey, telephone interviews and secondary data; (3) a two-wave survey of (i) new attenders/non-attenders in 10 sites to determine the impact on staff engagement and well-being; and (ii) interviews with Rounds attenders, non-attenders, facilitators, clinical leads, steering group members, board members and observations in nine case study sites to (4) describe experiences and (5) test candidate programme theories by which Rounds ‘work’ (realist evaluation).Setting(1) International literature (English); (2) all Rounds providers (acute/community NHS trusts and hospices) at 1 September 2014 (survey/interview) and 15 July 2015 (secondary data); (3) 10 survey sites; and (4 and 5) nine organisational case study sites (six of which also took part in the survey).Participants(1) Ten papers were reviewed for Rounds and 146 were reviewed for alternative interventions. (2) Surveys were received from 41 out of 76 (54%) providers and interviews were conducted with 45 out of 76 (59%) providers. (3) Surveys were received from 1140 out of 3815 (30%) individuals at baseline and from 500 out of 1140 (44%) individuals at follow-up. (4 and 5) A total of 177 interviews were conducted, as were observations of 42 Rounds, 29 panel preparations and 28 steering group meetings.Results(1) The evidence base is limited; compared with 11 alternative interventions, Rounds offer a unique organisation-wide ‘all staff’ forum in which disclosure/contribution is not essential. (2) Implementation rapidly increased between 2013 and 2015; Rounds were implemented variably; challenges included ward staff attendance and the workload and resources required to sustain Rounds; and costs were widely variable. (3) There was no change in engagement, but poor psychological well-being (12-item General Health Questionnaire) reduced significantly (p < 0.05) in Rounds attenders (25% to 12%) compared with non-attenders (37% to 34%). (4 and 5) Rounds were described as interesting, engaging and supportive; four contextual layers explained the variation in Rounds implementation. We identified four stages of Rounds, ‘core’ and ‘adaptable’ components of Rounds fidelity, and nine context–mechanism–outcome configurations: (i) trust, emotional safety and containment and (ii) group interaction were prerequisites for creating (iii) a countercultural space in Rounds where staff could (iv) tell stories, (v) self-disclose their experiences to peers and (vi) role model vulnerability; (vii) provide important context for staff and patient behaviour; (viii) shining a spotlight on hidden staff and patient stories reduced isolation and enhanced support/teamwork; and (ix) staff learned through reflection resulting in ripple effects and outcomes. Reported outcomes included increased empathy and compassion for colleagues and patients, support for staff and reported changes in practice. The impact of Rounds is cumulative and we have identified the necessary conditions for Rounds to work.LimitationsRounds outcomes relied on self-report, fewer regular attenders were recruited than desired, and it was not possible to observe staff post Rounds.ConclusionRounds offer unique support for staff and positively influence staff well-being, empathy and compassion for patients and colleagues.Future workThe adaptation of Rounds to new contexts and to increase reach needs evaluation.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Striking differences exist in outcomes for cancer between developed countries with comparable healthcare systems. We compare the healthcare systems of 3 countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden), 3 UK jurisdictions (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), 3 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario) and 2 Australian states (New South Wales, Victoria) using a framework which assesses the possible contribution of primary care systems to a range of health outcomes, drawing on key characteristics influencing population health.For many of the characteristics we investigated there are no significant differences between those countries with poorer cancer outcomes (England and Denmark) and the rest. In particular, regulation, financing, the existence of patient lists, the GP gatekeeping role, direct access to secondary care, the degree of comprehensiveness of primary care services, the level of cost sharing and the type of primary care providers within healthcare systems were not specifically and consistently associated with differences between countries. Factors that could have an influence on patient and professional behaviour, and consequently contribute to delays in cancer diagnosis and poorer cancer outcomes in some countries, include centralisation of services, free movement of patients between primary care providers, access to secondary care, and the existence of patient list systems.It was not possible to establish a causal correlation between healthcare system characteristics and cancer outcomes. Further studies should explore in greater depth the associations between single health system factors and cancer outcomes, recognising that in complex systems where context is all-important, it will be difficult to establish causal relationships. Better understanding of the interaction between healthcare system variables and patient and professional behaviour may generate new hypotheses for further research.

The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) was initiated by the Department of Health in England to study international variation in cancer survival, and to inform policy to improve cancer survival. It is a research collaboration between twelve jurisdictions in six countries: Australia (New South Wales, Victoria), Canada (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario), Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Wales). Leadership is provided by policymakers, with academics, clinicians and cancer registries forming an international network to conduct the research. The project currently has five modules examining: (1) cancer survival, (2) population awareness and beliefs about cancer, (3) attitudes, behaviours and systems in primary care, (4) delays in diagnosis and treatment, and their causes, and (5) treatment, co-morbidities and other factors. These modules employ a range of methodologies including epidemiological and statistical analyses, surveys and clinical record audit. The first publications have already been used to inform and develop cancer policies in participating countries, and a further series of publications is under way. The module design, governance structure, funding arrangements and management approach to the partnership provide a case study in conducting international comparisons of health systems that are both academically and clinically robust and of immediate relevance to policymakers.

BackgroundSurvival rates following a diagnosis of cancer vary between countries. The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP), a collaboration between six countries with primary care led health services, was set up in 2009 to investigate the causes of these differences. Module 3 of this collaboration hypothesised that an association exists between the readiness of primary care physicians (PCP) to investigate for cancer – the ‘threshold’ risk level at which they investigate or refer to a specialist for consideration of possible cancer – and survival for that cancer (lung, colorectal and ovarian). We describe the development of an international survey instrument to test this hypothesis.MethodsThe work was led by an academic steering group in England. They agreed that an online survey was the most pragmatic way of identifying differences between the jurisdictions. Research questions were identified through clinical experience and expert knowledge of the relevant literature.A survey comprising a set of direct questions and five clinical scenarios was developed to investigate the hypothesis. The survey content was discussed and refined concurrently and repeatedly with international partners. The survey was validated using an iterative process in England. Following validation the survey was adapted to be relevant to the health systems operating in other jurisdictions and translated into Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, and into Canadian and Australian English.ResultsThis work has produced a survey with face, content and cross cultural validity that will be circulated in all six countries. It could also form a benchmark for similar surveys in countries with similar health care systems.ConclusionsThe vignettes could also be used as educational resources. This study is likely to impact on healthcare policy and practice in participating countries.

The NHS outcomes framework makes clear that the provision of a 'good experience' of care for patients, alongside clinical effectiveness and safety, is a central goal for the NHS. Developing a comprehensive strategy for measuring patient experience requires a decision about what should be measured and how. This article discusses current policy direction and its implications for practice, and sets out the fundamentals of measuring patient experience.