The findings point towards the potential efficacy of the huddle as a way of improving hospital staff members' working environments and clinical practice, with important implications for other sites seeking to implement such safety improvement initiatives.

The aim of the present research was to explore clinician attitudes to outcome measures and, in particular, the facilitators and barriers to implementing outcome measures. An up-to-date exploration of clinician attitudes is especially needed in the context of recent policies on the implementation of outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), and because evidence suggests that there is a disparity between policy recommendations and the use of outcome measures in clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine CAMHS clinicians from a Mental Health Trust in South London. Two levels of implementation emerged from the analysis: (1) the service level, regarding the implementation of outcome measures across a service to inform service improvement and (2) the session level, regarding the implementation of outcome measures within individual clinical sessions. The present research described training and ongoing support as a crucial facilitator of use at both service and session levels. This included help overcoming local contextual barriers, such as resources, information systems and administrative processes. The research showed that a balance is needed between a mandatory and uniform approach across a service and providing clinicians with support to use outcome measures with all service users for whom they are appropriate.

Background‘Situation Awareness For Everyone’ (SAFE) was a 3-year project which aimed to improve situation awareness in clinical teams in order to detect potential deterioration and other potential risks to children on hospital wards. The key intervention was the ‘huddle’, a structured case management discussion which is central to facilitating situation awareness. This study aimed to develop an observational assessment tool to assess the team processes occurring during huddles, including the effectiveness of the huddle.MethodsA cross-sectional observational design was used to psychometrically develop the ‘Huddle Observation Tool’ (HOT) over three phases using standardised psychometric methodology. Huddles were observed across four NHS paediatric wards participating in SAFE by five researchers; two wards within specialist children hospitals and two within district general hospitals, with location, number of beds and length of stay considered to make the sample as heterogeneous as possible. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the weighted kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient.ResultsInter-rater reliability was acceptable for the collaborative culture (weighted kappa=0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.42), environment items (weighted kappa=0.78, 95% CI 0.52 to 1) and total score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95). It was lower for the structure and risk management items, suggesting that these were more variable in how observers rated them. However, agreement on the global score for huddles was acceptable.ConclusionWe developed an observational assessment tool to assess the team processes occurring during huddles, including the effectiveness of the huddle. Future research should examine whether observational evaluations of huddles are associated with other indicators of safety on clinical wards (eg, safety climate and incidents of patient harm), and whether scores on the HOT are associated with improved situation awareness and reductions in deterioration and adverse events in clinical settings, such as inpatient wards.