3 rd Doctoral Colloquium
Trinity College Dublin
6 th November 2012
 This study will focus on attempts to improve patient safety
through promoting the involvement of patients in the planning
and delivery of surgical care through an Enhanced Recovery
After Surgery (ERAS) programme.
 The broad aim of this study is to explore the extent to which
patients are involved in attempts to improve their own
healthcare safety, specifically considering the mechanism of
effect and investigating the conditions and circumstances that
are required for patients’ to adopt safety roles.
 The underpinning theoretical framework of this proposal is
realist evaluation, which explores what is it about an
intervention that works (or not), for whom and in what
circumstances, and develops explanations about how the effects
of a programme intervention are achieved.

When making observations, scientists look through telescopes,

study images on electronic screens, record meter readings, and so
on. Generally, on a basic level, they can agree on what they see, e.g.,
the thermometer shows 37.9 C. But, if these scientists have different
ideas about the theories that have been developed to explain these

basic observations, they can interpret them in different ways.
Ancient scientists interpreted the rising of the Sun in the morning
as evidence that the Sun moved. Later scientists deduce that the
Earth is rotating. For example, if some scientists may conclude that
certain observations confirm a specific hypothesis, skeptical
colleagues may suspect that something is wrong with the test
equipment. Observations when interpreted by a scientist's theories
are said to be theory-laden.

Whitehead wrote, "All science must start with some assumptions as
to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. These
assumptions are justified partly by their adherence to the types of
occurrence of which we are directly conscious, and partly by their
success in representing the observed facts with a certain generality,
devoid of ad hoc suppositions."[22]

Observation involves both perception as well as cognition. That is,
one does not make an observation passively, but is also actively
engaged in distinguishing the phenomenon being observed from
surrounding sensory data. Therefore, observations are affected by
our underlying understanding of the way in which the world
functions, and that understanding may influence what is perceived,
noticed, or deemed worthy of consideration. More importantly,
most scientific observation must be done within a theoretical
context in order to be useful. For example, when one observes a
measured increase in temperature with a thermometer, that
observation is based on assumptions about the nature of
temperature and its measurement, as well as assumptions about
how the thermometer functions. Such assumptions are necessary in
order to obtain scientifically useful observations (such as, "the
temperature increased by two degrees").

Empirical observation is used to determine the acceptability
of hypotheses within a theory. Justification of a hypothesis often
includes reference to a theory – operational definitions and
hypotheses – in which the observation is embedded. That is, the
observation is framed in terms of the theory that also contains the
hypothesis it is meant to verify or falsify (though of course the
observation should not be based on an assumption of the truth or
falsity of the hypothesis being tested). This means that the
observation cannot serve as an entirely neutral arbiter between
competing hypotheses, but can only arbitrate between hypotheses
within the context of the underlying theory that explains the
observation.
Thomas Kuhn denied that it is ever possible to isolate the
hypothesis being tested from the influence of the theory in which
the observations are grounded. He argued that observations always
rely on a specific paradigm, and that it is not possible to evaluate
competing paradigms independently. By "paradigm" he meant,
essentially, a logically consistent "portrait" of the world, one that
involves no logical contradictions and that is consistent with
observations that are made from the point of view of this paradigm.
More than one such logically consistent construct can paint a
usable likeness of the world, but there is no common ground from
which to pit two against each other, theory against theory. Neither
is a standard by which the other can be judged. Instead, the
question is which "portrait" is judged by some set of people to
promise the most useful in terms of scientific "puzzle solving".

For Kuhn, the choice of paradigm was sustained by, but not
ultimately determined by, logical processes. The individual's choice
between paradigms involves setting two or more "portraits" against
the world and deciding which likeness is most promising. In the
case of a general acceptance of one paradigm or another, Kuhn
believed that it represented the consensus of the community of
scientists. Acceptance or rejection of some paradigm is, he argued, a
social process as much as a logical process. Kuhn's position,
however, is not one of relativism.[23] According to Kuhn, a
paradigm shift will occur when a significant number of
observational anomalies in the old paradigm have made the new
paradigm more useful. That is, the choice of a new paradigm is
based on observations, even though those observations are made
against the background of the old paradigm. A new paradigm is
chosen because it does a better job of solving scientific problems
than the old one.

The fact that observation is embedded in theory does not mean
observations are irrelevant to science. Scientific understanding
derives from observation, but the acceptance of scientific
statements is dependent on the related theoretical background or
paradigm as well as on observation. Coherentism, skepticism,
and foundationalism are alternatives for dealing with the difficulty
of grounding scientific theories in something more than
observations. And, of course, further, redesigned testing may
resolve differences of opinion.
 Keep it Simple
Stupid
 Occam’s Razor
 Simplicity is the
ultimate
sophistication
 Less is more
Patient Involvement in Safer Surgery: A Realist Analysis
D. Roche*
School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, Cardiff University, Eastgate House, Newport Road,
Cardiff CF24 0AB
*Corresponding Author: (roched1@cf.ac.uk)
Abstract
Research has shown that healthcare systems can cause harm to patients, much of which is avoidable, and
there is reliable evidence to suggest that this avoidable harm is a widespread and recurring phenomenon.
This paper describes how the researcher will use a realist evaluation approach to study attempts to involve
patients in the planning and delivery of safer surgical care.
Keywords: Patient safety, Involvement, Surgery
1. Background
Patients are the only individuals present during
every treatment and consultation and they carry
with
them
important
contextualised
information as they move through a complex
and distributed process of care. As a result,
patients have been increasingly seen as a
valuable resource in helping to ensure the safe
delivery of care and effective treatment systems
(Unruh and Pratt 2006; Coulter 2006).
However, a recent scoping study of almost
2,000 papers by Peat et al (2010) of
interventions intended to involve patients in
patient safety programmes concluded that
rigorous evaluations of such programmes are
desperately needed. A similar conclusion was
reached by Davis et al (2008; 2011) who agree
that future questions regarding patient
involvement in attempts to improve patient
safety in hospitals should include focus on
what conditions and circumstances are required
for patients to adopt safety roles.
This study will focus on attempts to
improve patient safety though promoting the
involvement of patients in the planning and
delivery of surgical care. The broad aim is to
explore the extent to which patients are
involved in attempts to enhance their own
healthcare safety, specifically considering the
mechanism of effect and investigating the
conditions and circumstances that are required
for patients’ to adopt safety roles. All
participants will be involved in an Enhanced
Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) programme in
one of three surgical units in a single
University Health Board in Wales.
2. Enhanced Recovery after Surgery
ERAS is a multi-modality evidence based
approach to improving the quality of patient
care after major surgery. It embodies a selected
number of individual interventions which
demonstrate a greater impact on outcomes
when implemented together than when
implemented as individual interventions (NHS
Wales 2010; 2011). The basic principles of
ERAS include ensuring that the patient has the
best possible management before, during and
after his or her operation. The ERAS
programme also has an economic imperative
relating to increased patient throughput.
The ERAS programme is grouped into
‘care bundles’, in which the key drivers or
interventions are grouped together to promote
their delivery. This research will focus on the
Pre-operative Assessment care bundle, which
plays an essential role in how the patient
understands, considers and ultimately
participates in the ERAS pathway, and the
Peri-operative Assessment care bundle, which
is designed for optimal management of the
patient and is a key aspect of the programme
(NHS Wales 2010; 2011).
Patient safety is just one element of the