The Well Organised Working Environment: A mixed methods study

Background: The English National Health Service Institute for Innovation and Improvement designed a series of programmes called The Productive Series. These are innovations designed to help healthcare staff reduce inefficiency and improve quality, and have been implemented in healthcare organisations in at least 14 different countries. This paper examines an implementation of the first module of the Productive Community Services programme called 'The Well Organised Working Environment'. Objective: The quantitative component aims to identify the quantitative outcomes and impact of the implementation of the Well Organised Working Environment module. The qualitative component aims to describe the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes evident during the implementation, and to consider the implication of these findings for healthcare staff, commissioners and implementation teams. Design: Mixed methods explanatory sequential design. Settings: Community Healthcare Organisation in East Anglia, England. Participants: For the quantitative data, participants were 73 staff members that completed End of Module Assessments. Data from 25 services that carried out an inventory of stock items stored were also analysed. For the qualitative element, participants were 45 staff members working in the organisation during the implementation, and four members of the Productive Community Services Implementation Team. Methods: Staff completed assessments at the end of the module implementation, and the value of items stored by clinical services was recorded. After the programme concluded, semi-structured interviews with staff and a focus group with members of the Productive Community Services implementation team were analysed using Framework Analysis employing the principles of Realist Evaluation. Results: 62.5% respondents (n = 45) to the module assessment reported an improvement in their working environment, 37.5% (n = 27) reported that their working environment stayed the same or deteriorated. The reduction of the value of items stored by services ranged from £4 to £5039 across different services. Results of the qualitative analysis suggests explanations for why the programme worked in some contexts and not others, for instance due to varying levels of management support, and varying levels of resources allocated to carrying out or sustaining the improvement work. Conclusions: Quantitative analysis of data generated during healthcare improvement initiatives can give an impression of the benefits realised, but additional qualitative analysis also provides opportunity for learning to improve future implementations. Targets set by commissioners for innovation should focus on sustaining improvement rather demonstrating one-off benefits, and implementation teams should not let their preconceptions of what will and what will not work prevent them from trying interventions that may benefit staff.