The quality and safety of locum doctors: a narrative review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ferguson J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6851536 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The quality and safety of locum doctors: a narrative review.
Ferguson Jane J Walshe Kieran K
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 20191101 11
Locum doctors are often perceived to present greater risks of causing harm to patients than permanent doctors. After eligibility and quality assessment, eight empirical and 34 non-empirical papers were included in a narrative synthesis to establish what was known about the quality and safety of locum medical practice. Empirical literature was limited and weak methodologically. Locums enabled healthcare organisations to maintain appropriate staffing levels and allowed staffing flexibility, but th ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTemporary doctors, known as locums, are a key component of the medical workforce in the NHS but evidence on differences in quality and safety between locum and permanent doctors is limited. We aimed to examine differences in the clinical practice, and prescribing safety for locum and permanent doctors working in primary care in England.MethodsWe accessed electronic health care records (EHRs) for 3.5 million patients from the CPRD GOLD database with linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics from 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2022. We used multi-level mixed effects logistic regression to compare consultations with locum and permanent GPs for several patient outcomes including general practice revisits; prescribing of antibiotics; strong opioids; hypnotics; A&E visits; emergency hospital admissions; admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions; test ordering; referrals; and prescribing safety indicators while controlling for patient and practice characteristics.ResultsConsultations with locum GPs were 22% more likely to involve a prescription for an antibiotic (OR = 1.22 (1.21 to 1.22)), 8% more likely to involve a prescription for a strong opioid (OR = 1.08 (1.06 to 1.09)), 4% more likely to be followed by an A&E visit on the same day (OR = 1.04 (1.01 to 1.08)) and 5% more likely to be followed by an A&E visit within 1 to 7 days (OR = 1.05 (1.02 to 1.08)). Consultations with a locum were 12% less likely to lead to a practice revisit within 7 days (OR = 0.88 (0.87 to 0.88)), 4% less likely to involve a prescription for a hypnotic (OR = 0.96 (0.94 to 0.98)), 15% less likely to involve a referral (OR = 0.85 (0.84 to 0.86)) and 19% less likely to involve a test (OR = 0.81 (0.80 to 0.82)). We found no evidence that emergency admissions, ACSC admissions and eight out of the eleven prescribing safety indicators were different if patients were seen by a locum or a permanent GP.ConclusionsDespite existing concerns, the clinical practice and performance of locum GPs did not appear to be systematically different from that of permanent GPs. The practice and performance of both locum and permanent GPs is likely shaped by the organisational setting and systems within which they work.
| S-EPMC10967114 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The positive effects of the WHO Surgery Safety Checklist (WHO SSC) have been demonstrated by a large amount of quantitative studies. With this review, the focus changes to the content of qualitative studies on WHO SSC to identify possible research gaps. In this way, gaps in the content of the execution of individual checklists can be closed. The two research platforms "Ovid Medline" and "PubMed" formed a solid basis for the literature research. The search was conducted until the 19th of September 2022. The following group terms were used: "checklist", "surgery", "implementation", and "WHO Surgical Safety Checklist". Subsequently, the literature research was limited to studies between 2011 and 2021 in either English or German. Overall, a positive effect was found in all qualitative studies on WHO SSC with respect to leadership, teamwork, timing and acceptance. Acceptance through effective implementation of the SSC deserves special mention. Several studies highlighted the lack of understanding and training, which led to variation in execution. A large number of studies agree that the WHO SSC is fostering teamwork and improving communication. However, there are also hurdles and barriers in the application that seem to have an influence on the effectiveness. The exact mechanisms of the advantage and application of the checklist are still poorly understood. Further research in this area is needed for a better understanding of the underlying work culture and consequently improving patient safety.
| S-EPMC10636476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTemporary doctors, known as locum doctors, play an important role in the delivery of care in the National Health Service (NHS); however, little is known about the extent of locum use in NHS trusts. This study aimed to quantify and describe locum use for all NHS trusts in England in 2019-2021.SettingDescriptive analyses of data on locum shifts from all NHS trusts in England in 2019-2021. Weekly data were available for the number of shifts filled by agency and bank staff and the number of shifts requested by each trust. Negative binomial models were used to investigate the association between the proportion of medical staffing provided by locums and NHS trust characteristics.ResultsIn 2019, on average 4.4% of total medical staffing was provided by locums, but this varied substantially across trusts (25th-75th centile=2.2%-6.2%). Over time, on average two-thirds of locum shifts were filled by locum agencies and a third by trusts' staff banks. On average, 11.3% of shifts requested were left unfilled. In 2019-2021, the mean number of weekly shifts per trust increased by 19% (175.2-208.6) and the mean number of weekly unfilled shifts per trust increased by 54% (32.7 to 50.4). Trusts rated by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as inadequate or requiring improvement (incidence rate ratio=1.495; 95% CI 1.191 to 1.877), and smaller trusts had a higher use of locums. Large variability was observed across regions for use of locums, proportion of shifts filled by locum agencies and unfilled shifts.ConclusionsThere were large variations in the demand for and use of locum doctors in NHS trusts. Trusts with poor CQC ratings and smaller trusts appear to use locum doctors more intensively compared with other trust types. Unfilled shifts were at a 3-year high at the end of 2021 suggesting increased demand which may result from growing workforce shortages in NHS trusts.
| S-EPMC10254888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLocum working in healthcare organisations has benefits for individual doctors and organisations but there are concerns about the impact of locum working on continuity of care, patient safety, team function and cost. We conducted a national survey of NHS Trusts in England to explore locum work, and better understand why and where locum doctors were needed; how locum doctors were engaged, supported, perceived and managed; and any changes being made in the way locums are used.MethodsAn online survey was sent to 191 NHS Trusts and 98 were returned (51%) including 66 (67%) acute hospitals, 26 (27%) mental health and six (6%) community health providers. Data was analysed using frequency tables, t-tests and correlations. Free-text responses were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsMost NHS Trusts use locums frequently and for varying lengths of time. Trusts prefer to use locums from internal locum banks but frequently rely on locum agencies. The benefits of using locums included maintaining workforce capacity and flexibility. Importantly, care provided by locums was generally viewed as the same or somewhat worse when compared to care provided by permanent doctors. The main disadvantages of using locum agencies included cost, lack of familiarity and impact on organisational development. Some respondents felt that locums could be unreliable and less likely to be invested in quality improvement. NHS Trusts were broadly unfamiliar with the national guidance from NHS England for supporting locums and there was a focus on processes like compliance checks and induction, with less focus on providing feedback and support for appraisal.ConclusionsLocum doctors provide a necessary service within NHS Trusts to maintain workforce capacity and provide patient care. There are potential issues related to the way that locums are perceived, utilised, and supported which might impact the quality of the care that they provide. Future research should consider the arrangements for locum working and the performance of locums and permanent doctors, investigating the organisation of locums in order to achieve safe and high-quality care for patients.
| S-EPMC10464080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionUnderperformance by doctors poses a risk to patient safety. Remediation is an intervention designed to remedy underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Remediation is widely used across healthcare systems globally, and has clear implications for both patient safety and doctor retention. Yet, there is a poor evidence base to inform remediation programmes. In particular, there is a lack of understanding as to why and how a remedial intervention may work to change a doctor's practice. The aim of this research is to identify why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to support patient safety.Methods and analysisRealist review is an approach to evidence synthesis that seeks to develop programme theories about how an intervention works to produce its effects. The initial search strategy will involve: database and grey literature searching, citation searching and contacting authors. The evidence search will be extended as the review progresses and becomes more focused on the development of specific aspects of the programme theory. The development of the programme theory will involve input from a stakeholder group consisting of professional experts in the remediation process and patient representatives. Evidence synthesis will use a realist logic of analysis to interrogate data in order to develop and refine the initial programme theory into a more definitive realist programme theory of how remediation works. The study will follow and be reported according to Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses-Evolving Standards (RAMESES).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Our dissemination strategy will include input from our stakeholder group. Customised outputs will be developed using the knowledge-to-action cycle framework, and will be targeted to: policy-makers; education providers and regulators, the National Health Service, doctors and academics.Prospero registration numberCRD42018088779.
| S-EPMC6224734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Patient safety in primary care is a developing field with an embryonic but evolving evidence base. This narrative review aims to identify tools that can be used by family practitioners as part of a patient safety toolkit to improve the safety of the care and services provided by their practices. METHODS: Searches were performed in 6 healthcare databases in 2011 using 3 search stems; location (primary care), patient safety synonyms and outcome measure synonyms. Two reviewers analysed the results using a numerical and thematic analyses. Extensive grey literature exploration was also conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 114 Tools were identified with 26 accrued from grey literature. Most published literature originated from the USA (41%) and the UK (23%) within the last 10 years. Most of the literature addresses the themes of medication error (55%) followed by safety climate (8%) and adverse event reporting (8%). Minor themes included; informatics (4.5%) patient role (3%) and general measures to correct error (5%). The primary/secondary care interface is well described (5%) but few specific tools for primary care exist. Diagnostic error and results handling appear infrequently (<1% of total literature) despite their relative importance. The remainder of literature (11%) related to referrals, Out-Of-Hours (OOH) care, telephone care, organisational issues, mortality and clerical error. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified tools and indicators that are available for use in family practice to measure patient safety, which is crucial to improve safety and design a patient safety toolkit. However, many of the tools have yet to be used in quality improvement strategies and cycles such as plan-do-study-act (PDSA) so there is a dearth of evidence of their utility in improving as opposed to measuring and highlighting safety issues. The lack of focus on diagnostics, systems safety and results handling provide direction and priorities for future research.
| S-EPMC4288623 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Marginalised groups ('populations outside of mainstream society') experience severe health inequities, as well as increased risk of experiencing patient safety incidents. To date however no review exists to identify, map and analyse the literature in this area in order to understand 1) which marginalised groups have been studied in terms of patient safety research, 2) what the particular patient safety issues are for such groups and 3) what contributes to or is associated with these safety issues arising. METHODS:Scoping review. Systematic searches were performed across six electronic databases in September 2019. The time frame for searches of the respective databases was from the year 2000 until present day. RESULTS:The searches yielded 3346 articles, and 67 articles were included. Patient safety issues were identified for fourteen different marginalised patient groups across all studies, with 69% (n =?46) of the studies focused on four patient groups: ethnic minority groups, frail elderly populations, care home residents and low socio-economic status. Twelve separate patient safety issues were classified. Just over half of the studies focused on three issues represented in the patient safety literature, and in order of frequency were: medication safety, adverse outcomes and near misses. In total, 157 individual contributing or associated factors were identified and mapped to one of seven different factor types from the Framework of Contributory Factors Influencing Clinical Practice within the London Protocol. Patient safety issues were mostly multifactorial in origin including patient factors, health provider factors and health care system factors. CONCLUSIONS:This review highlights that marginalised patient groups are vulnerable to experiencing a variety patient safety issues and points to a number of gaps. The findings indicate the need for further research to understand the intersectional nature of marginalisation and the multi-dimensional nature of patient safety issues, for groups that have been under-researched, including those with mental health problems, communication and cognitive impairments. Such understanding provides a basis for working collaboratively to co-design training, services and/or interventions designed to remove or at the very least minimise these increased risks. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not applicable for a scoping review.
| S-EPMC7014732 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11020646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionDespite common assumptions that doctors are well placed to lead hospitals and healthcare organisations, the peer-reviewed literature contains little evidence on the performance of doctors in leadership roles in comparison with that of non-medical managers.ObjectivesTo determine whether there is an association between the leader's medical background and management performance in terms of organisational performance or patient outcomes.MethodsWe searched for peer-reviewed, English language studies using Medline, Embase and Emerald Management between 2005 and 2017. We included quantitative, qualitative and mixed method empirical studies on the performance of senior healthcare managers where participants were described as doctors or leaders and where comparative performance data were provided on non-medical leaders. Studies without full text available, or no organisational, leadership behaviour or patient measures, were excluded.ResultsThe search, conducted in Medline (n=3395), Embase (n=1913) and Emerald Management (n=454) databases, yielded 3926 entries. After the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies remained. Twelve studies found that there were positive differences between medical and non-medical leaders, and eight studies correlated those findings with hospital performance or patient outcomes. Six studies examined the composition of boards of directors; otherwise, there were few common areas of investigation. Five inter-related themes emerged from a narrative analysis: the impact of medical leadership on outcomes; doctors on boards; contribution of qualifications and experience; the medical leader as an individual or part of a team and doctors transitioning into the medical leadership role.Discussion and conclusionA modest body of evidence supports the importance of including doctors on organisational governing boards. Despite many published articles on the topic of whether hospitals and healthcare organisations perform better when led by doctors, there were few empirical studies that directly compared the performance of medical and non-medical managers. This is an under-researched area that requires further funding and focus.
| S-EPMC5623455 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding of factors that contribute to implementation of effective cancer multidisciplinary team meetings (MDMs) is still limited. Published literature on the effect of teamwork function, leadership roles, decision-making processes and structural components on the quality of MDMs was reviewed and synthesised.MethodsIn this paper, a MEDLINE review (September 2020) was performed to assess clinical decision-making in the context of MDM discussions.ResultsTwenty-nine eligible studies were included. Six studies addressed the infrastructural aspects of MDMs. Nine studies used either qualitative or mixed method approach to develop and validate observational tools to assess the quality of MDMs. Seven studies used qualitative approaches to explore the opinions of MDM members on factors that impact on the effectiveness of MDMs. Five studies used validated observational tools to observe and assess the effectiveness of MDMs. One prospective study explored the relationship between quality of information presented at MDMs and ability of MDM members to make clinical decisions. The final study prospectively tested the ability of a multicomponent intervention to improve decision-making processes within MDMs.ConclusionsA broad range of factors including teamwork, leadership, case complexity, decision-making processes and availability of patient information were identified to impact the quality of MDMs. Evidence currently available largely focuses on the development of tools to identify factors in need of improvement to optimise MDMs. Robust research is required to identify the factors that are demonstrated to enhance MDM quality which can then aid the standardisation of how MDMs are conducted.
| S-EPMC9089217 | biostudies-literature