Dataset Information

How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is well known that many healthcare systems have poor reliability; however, the size and pervasiveness of this problem and its impact has not been systematically established in the UK. The authors studied four clinical systems: clinical information in surgical outpatient clinics, prescribing for hospital inpatients, equipment in theatres, and insertion of peripheral intravenous lines. The aim was to describe the nature, extent and variation in reliability of these four systems in a sample of UK hospitals, and to explore the reasons for poor reliability.

Methods

Seven UK hospital organisations were involved; each system was studied in three of these. The authors took delivery of the systems' intended outputs to be a proxy for the reliability of the system as a whole. For example, for clinical information, 100% reliability was defined as all patients having an agreed list of clinical information available when needed during their appointment. Systems factors were explored using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Common themes across the systems were identified.

Results

Overall reliability was found to be between 81% and 87% for the systems studied, with significant variation between organisations for some systems: clinical information in outpatient clinics ranged from 73% to 96%; prescribing for hospital inpatients 82-88%; equipment availability in theatres 63-88%; and availability of equipment for insertion of peripheral intravenous lines 80-88%. One in five reliability failures were associated with perceived threats to patient safety. Common factors causing poor reliability included lack of feedback, lack of standardisation, and issues such as access to information out of working hours.

Conclusions

Reported reliability was low for the four systems studied, with some common factors behind each. However, this hides significant variation between organisations for some processes, suggesting that some organisations have managed to create more reliable systems. Standardisation of processes would be expected to have significant benefit.

SUBMITTER: Burnett S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3355340 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations.

Burnett Susan S Franklin Bryony Dean BD Moorthy Krishna K Cooke Matthew W MW Vincent Charles C

BMJ quality & safety 20120411 6

<h4>Background</h4>It is well known that many healthcare systems have poor reliability; however, the size and pervasiveness of this problem and its impact has not been systematically established in the UK. The authors studied four clinical systems: clinical information in surgical outpatient clinics, prescribing for hospital inpatients, equipment in theatres, and insertion of peripheral intravenous lines. The aim was to describe the nature, extent and variation in reliability of these four syste ...[more]

PMID: 22495099

Similar Datasets

Project description:The cause of adverse weekend clinical outcomes remains unknown. In 2013, the "NHS Services, Seven Days a Week" project was initiated to improve access to services across the seven-day week. Three years on, we sought to analyse the impact of such changes across the English NHS.Aggregated trust-level data on crude mortality rates, Summary Hospital-Level Mortality Indicator (SHMI), mean length of stay (LOS), A&E admission and four-hour breach rates were obtained from national Hospital Episode Statistics and A&E datasets across the English NHS, excluding mental and community health trusts. Trust annual reports were analysed to determine the presence of any seven-day service reorganisation in 2013-2014. Funnel plots were generated to compare institutional performance and a difference in differences analysis was performed to determine the impact of seven-day changes on clinical outcomes between 2013 and 2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. Data was summarised as mean (SD).Of 159 NHS trusts, 79 (49.7%) instituted seven-day changes in 2013-2014. Crude mortality rates, A&E admission rates and mean LOS remained relatively stable between 2013 and 2016, whilst A&E four-hour breach rates nearly doubled from 5.3 to 9.7%. From 2013 to 2014 to 2014-2015 and 2015-2016, there were no significant differences in the change in crude mortality (2014-2015 p = 0.8, 2015-2016 p = 0.9), SHMI (2014-2015 p = 0.5, 2015-2016 p = 0.5), mean LOS (2014-2015 p = 0.5, 2015-2016 p = 0.4), A&E admission (2014-2015 p = 0.6, 2015-2016 p = 1.0) or four-hour breach rates (2014-2015 p = 0.06, 2015-2016 p = 0.6) between trusts that had implemented seven-day changes compared to those which had not.Adverse weekend clinical outcomes may not be ameliorated by large scale reorganisations aimed at improving access to health services across the week. Such changes may negatively impact care quality without additional financial investment, as demonstrated by worsening of some outcomes. Detailed prospective research is required to determine whether such reallocation of finite resources is clinically effective.

Project description:ObjectivesTo understand organisational technology adoption (initiation, adoption decision, implementation) by looking at the different types of innovation knowledge used during this process.DesignQualitative, multisite, comparative case study design.SettingOne primary care and 11 acute care organisations (trusts) across all health regions in England in the context of infection prevention and control. PARTICIPANTS AND DATA ANALYSIS: 121 semistructured individual and group interviews with 109 informants, involving clinical and non-clinical staff from all organisational levels and various professional groups. Documentary evidence and field notes were also used. 38 technology adoption processes were analysed using an integrated approach combining inductive and deductive reasoning.Main findingsThose involved in the process variably accessed three types of innovation knowledge: 'awareness' (information that an innovation exists), 'principles' (information about an innovation's functioning principles) and 'how-to' (information required to use an innovation properly at individual and organisational levels). Centralised (national, government-led) and local sources were used to obtain this knowledge. Localised professional networks were preferred sources for all three types of knowledge. Professional backgrounds influenced an asymmetric attention to different types of innovation knowledge. When less attention was given to 'how-to' compared with 'principles' knowledge at the early stages of the process, this contributed to 12 cases of incomplete implementation or discontinuance after initial adoption.ConclusionsPotential adopters and change agents often overlooked or undervalued 'how-to' knowledge. Balancing 'principles' and 'how-to' knowledge early in the innovation process enhanced successful technology adoption and implementation by considering efficacy as well as strategic, structural and cultural fit with the organisation's context. This learning is critical given the policy emphasis for health organisations to be innovation-ready.

Project description:Research that is integral into a 'learning healthcare system' can promote cost effective services and knowledge creation. As such, research is defined as a 'core function' in UK health service organisations, and is often planned through research and development (R&D) strategies that aim to promote research activity and research capacity development (RCD). The discussion focuses around the content of ten R&D strategies for healthcare organisations in England and Scotland, with respect to RCD. These organisations were engaged with a research interest network called ACORN (Addressing Organisational Capacity to do Research Network) that included two Scottish Health Boards, four community and mental health trusts, two provincial district hospitals, and two teaching hospitals. We undertook a thematic documentary analysis of the R&D strategies which identified 11 'core activities' of RCD. The potential for building research capacity in these 'core activities' was established by reviewing them through the lens of a RCD framework. Core activities aimed to 'hard wire' RCD into health organisations. They demonstrated a complex interplay between developing a strong internal organisational infrastructure, and supporting individual career planning and skills development, in turn enabled by organisational processes. They also included activities to build stronger inter-organisational relationships and networks. Practitioner, manager and patient involvement was a cross cutting theme. The potential to demonstrate progress was included in plans through monitoring activity across all RCD principles. Strategies were primarily aimed at research production rather than research use. Developing 'actionable dissemination' was poorly addressed in the strategies, and represents an area for improvement. We describe strengths of RCD planning activities, and opportunities for improvement. We explore how national policy and research funders can influence health systems' engagement in research.

Project description:Establishment and subsequent validation of a aCGH protocol for WGA (whole genome amplification) products originating from single cell or low amount of starting material (i.e. microdissected FFPE tissue samples). The establishment of the protocol involved testing of three DNA labeling protocols. Two labeling protocols were designed specifically for Ampli1(TM) WGA products. Additionally random primed isothermal (Klenow-based) labeling approach was tested (MM-CM-6hlendick et al., PLoS One. 2013 Jun 25;8(6):e67031.). In addition two different types of reference samples were tested and reference based on single-cell WGA products was chosen as most suitable in the end. The validation of the protocol assessed the following aspects: (1) performance of the protocol on primary and reamplified WGA products, (2) accuracy of the protocol in term of sensitivity of the CNA detection, (3) accuracy in terms of recapitulation of complex patterns of CNAs, (4) accuracy in terms of quantitative assessment of the CNAs, (5) ability to detect genomic heterogeneity of single cells (obtained either from in vitro cultures or from clinical patient material), (6) ability to detect minimal regions of aberration within a panel of disseminated cancer cells and corresponding tumor tissues. Establishment and validation of the single-cell aCGH protocol: two condition experiment (i.e. PCR-based labeling technique 1 vs. PCR-based labeling technique 2; PCR-based labeling technique 2 vs. random-primed isothermal (Klenow) labeling approach; reference DNA from cell pool WGA product vs. reference DNA from single-cell WGA products). Validation of the protocol: comparison of the CNA profiles between single-cell WGA products and corresponding bulk DNA. Analysis of the DCC and corresponding FFPE tumor tissue samples: single-condition experiment performed on samples collected at different stages of the disease (DCCs from bone marrow) and/or from different sites (primary tumor-breast; metastasis-lymph nodes; DCCs-bone marrow). Microarray data is corresponding data depicted in the paper manuscript titled: Reliable single cell array CGH for clinical samples

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the current work of the Patient Advice and Liaison Service (PALS) and assess the service's potential to resolve concerns and contribute to organisational learning.DesignA qualitative study using semistructured interviews.SettingFour mental health trusts and four acute trusts in the English National Health Service, a total of eight PALS across different trusts.ParticipantsTwenty-four participants comprising of PALS staff and clinicians working with PALS teams.MethodsSemistructured interviews were undertaken with participants using video conferencing software. The framework method was used for the analysis of the large qualitative dataset, which is a conventional method of analysis, similar to thematic or qualitative content analysis.ResultsPALS teams fulfil their core responsibilities by acting as point of contact for patients, providing information and resolving a variety of recurrent problems, including PALS staff communication, staff attitudes and waiting times. The remit and responsibilities of each PALS has often broadened over time. Barriers to resolving concerns included a lack of awareness of PALS, limited to no policies informing how staff resolve concerns, an emphasis on complaints and the attitude of clinical staff. Senior management had widely differing views on how the PALS should operate and the management of complaints is a much higher priority. Few PALS teams carried out any analysis of the data or shared data within their organisations.ConclusionsPALS teams fulfil their core responsibilities by acting as point of contact for patients, providing information and resolving concerns. PALS staff also act as navigators of services, mediators between families and staff and, occasionally, patient advocates in supporting them to raise concerns. PALS has the potential to reduce complaints, increase patient satisfaction and provide rapid organisational feedback. Achieving this potential will require more awareness and support within organisations together with updated national policy guidance.

Dataset Information

How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets