Investigating mortuary services in hospital settings

Changes to the retention of human tissues and Department of Health guidance on good practice have resulted in the extension of the role of Anatomical Pathology Technologists (APTs). In the twenty-first century the APT role demands a wide variety of abilities, including an adroit blend of clinical knowledge and communication skills. The APT role is framed by a blurred occupational past. The need for clarity and a distinct professional identity is one of the driving forces behind the Association of Anatomical Pathology Technologists calls for standardisation of education, training and regulation. Currently, there are two qualifications for APTs provided through the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH): the Certificate in Anatomical Pathology Technology and the Diploma in Anatomical Pathology Technology. These have been developed and accredited by the RSPH since 1962. APTs in teaching hospitals or with high-risk facilities - although not usually part of the formal education process for any clinical staff beyond pathologists - are in a position to establish best practice as they are involved in ‘lifting the lid’ on what goes on in the mortuary. In this hospital, APTs promoted the work of the mortuary by going ‘out’ into the hospital and participating in different forums, including formal and informal meetings. They also invited colleagues into the mortuary. Identifying the deceased person as a patient rather than a body was a highly symbolic effort to ‘join up’ the work of the mortuary with the rest of the hospital, ensuring that the deceased person remained a patient of the hospital until they left the premises. An association with death was a potential barrier to communicating with colleagues outside of the mortuary, as the APTs found themselves stigmatised by what they perceived to be and what would be called sociologically their literal ‘embodiment’ of medical failure. This could be isolating for the APTs, to the point that when they went to other hospital departments, they were treated with caution. There is a strong case to be made for national regulation as part of the professionalisation of the APT role, in order to align individual’s responsibilities with accountability at the level of the regulating professional body itself

Patient safety in health care professional educational curricula: examining the learning experience

This study has investigated the formal and informal ways pre-registration students from four healthcare professions learn about patient safety in order to become safe practitioners. The study aims to understand some of the issues which impact upon teaching, learning and practising patient safety in academic, organisational and practice „knowledge? contexts. In Stage 1 we used a convenience sample of 13 educational providers across England and Scotland linked with five universities running traditional and innovative courses for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and physiotherapists. We gathered examples of existing curriculum documents for detailed analysis, and interviewed course directors and similar informants. In Stage 2 we undertook 8 case studies to develop an in-depth investigation of learning and practice by students and newly qualified practitioners in universities and practice settings in relation to patient safety. Data were gathered to explore the planning and implementation of patient safety curricula; the safety culture of the places where learning and working take place; the student teacher interface; and the influence of role models and organisational culture on practice. Data from observation, focus groups and interviews were transcribed and coded independently by more than one of the research team. Analysis was iterative and ongoing throughout the study. NHS policy is being taken seriously by course leaders, and Patient Safety material is being incorporated into both formal and informal curricula. Patient safety in the curriculum is largely implicit rather than explicit. All students very much value the practice context for learning about patient safety. However, resource issues, peer pressure and client factors can influence safe practice. Variations exist in students? experience, in approach between university tutors, different placement locations – the experience each offers – and the quality of the supervision available. Relationships with the mentor or clinical educator are vital to student learning. The role model offered and the relationship established affects how confident students feel to challenge unsafe practice in others. Clinicians are conscious of the tension between their responsibilities as clinicians (keeping patients safe), and as educators (allowing students to learn under supervision). There are some apparent gaps in curricular content where relevant evidence already exists – these include the epidemiology of adverse events and error, root cause analysis and quality assessment. Reference to the organisational context is often absent from course content and exposure limited. For example, incident reporting is not being incorporated to any great extent in undergraduate curricula. Newly qualified staff were aware of the need to be seen to practice in an evidence based way, and, for some at least, the need to modify „the standard? way of doing things to do „what?s best for the patient?. A number of recommendations have been made, some generic and others specific to individual professions. Regulators? expectations of courses in relation to patient 9 safety education should be explicit and regularly reviewed. Educators in all disciplines need to be effective role models who are clear about how to help students to learn about patient safety. All courses should be able to highlight a vertical integrated thread of teaching and learning related to patient safety in their curricula. This should be clear to staff and students. Assessment for this element should also be identifiable as assessment remains important in driving learning. All students need to be enabled to constructively challenge unsafe or non-standard practice. Encounters with patients and learning about their experiences and concerns are helpful in consolidating learning. Further innovative approaches should be developed to make patient safety issues 'real' for students

Joining up health and bioinformatics: e-science meets e-health

CLEF (Co-operative Clinical e-Science Framework) is an MRC sponsored project in the e-Science programme that aims to establish methodologies and a technical infrastructure forthe next generation of integrated clinical and bioscience research. It is developing methodsfor managing and using pseudonymised repositories of the long-term patient histories whichcan be linked to genetic, genomic information or used to support patient care. CLEF concentrateson removing key barriers to managing such repositories ? ethical issues, informationcapture, integration of disparate sources into coherent ?chronicles? of events, userorientedmechanisms for querying and displaying the information, and compiling the requiredknowledge resources. This paper describes the overall information flow and technicalapproach designed to meet these aims within a Grid framework

Stroke education for healthcare professionals: making it fit for purpose

<b>Research questions:</b> 1. What are healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) educational priorities regarding stroke care? 2. Do stroke care priorities vary across the primary and secondary sectors? 3. How do HCPs conceive stroke care will be delivered in 2010? <b>Study design:</b> This was a two-year study using focus groups and interviews for instrument development, questionnaires for data collection and workshops to provide study feedback. Data were collected in 2005–06. <b>Study site:</b> One Scottish health board. <b>Inclusion criteria:</b> All National Health Service healthcare professionals working wherever stroke care occurred. <b>Population and sample:</b> Participants were drawn from 4 university teaching hospitals, 2 community hospitals, 1 geriatric medicine day hospital, 48 general practices (GPs), 12 care homes and 15 community teams. The sample comprised 155 doctors, 313 nurses, 133 therapists (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists), and 29 ‘other HCPs’ (14 dieticians, 7 pharmacists, 2 podiatrists and 6 psychologists). <b>Results:</b> HCPs prefer face-to-face, accredited education but blended approaches are required that accommodate uni- and multidisciplinary demands. Doctors and nurses are more inclined towards discipline-specific training compared to therapists and other healthcare professionals (HCPs). HCPs in primary care and stroke units want more information on the social impact of stroke while those working in stroke units in particular are concerned with leadership in the multidisciplinary team. Nurses are the most interested in teaching patients and carers. <b>Conclusions</b> Stroke requires more specialist stroke staff, the upskilling of current staff and a national education pathway given that stroke care is most effectively managed by specialists with specific clinical skills. The current government push towards a flexible workforce is welcome but should be educationally-sound and recognise the career aspirations of healthcare professionals

Navigating Independent Double Checks for Safer Care: A Nursing Perspective

Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore registered nurses’ understanding and practice of “independent double-checks” prior to administration of high-alert medications. The study used a qualitative descriptive design for data collection and data analysis. It included thirteen participants from a hospital located in southern New Hampshire. Results of the study revealed a core theme of navigating independent double checks (IDC) for safer care. Two major themes stemming from the core theme were also uncovered. Navigating IDC through knowing and navigating IDC through nurse partnership both focused on the perception and practice on IDC prior to administration of high alert medications. IDC was accepted and promoted as best practice, but the definition and process is still unclear. Having a universal definition will assist in clarity of the process and in turn, promote ensuring safe administration of high alert medications to patients. Keywords: independent double check, safer care, knowing, nurse partnershi

Privacy in the Genomic Era

Genome sequencing technology has advanced at a rapid pace and it is now possible to generate highly-detailed genotypes inexpensively. The collection and analysis of such data has the potential to support various applications, including personalized medical services. While the benefits of the genomics revolution are trumpeted by the biomedical community, the increased availability of such data has major implications for personal privacy; notably because the genome has certain essential features, which include (but are not limited to) (i) an association with traits and certain diseases, (ii) identification capability (e.g., forensics), and (iii) revelation of family relationships. Moreover, direct-to-consumer DNA testing increases the likelihood that genome data will be made available in less regulated environments, such as the Internet and for-profit companies. The problem of genome data privacy thus resides at the crossroads of computer science, medicine, and public policy. While the computer scientists have addressed data privacy for various data types, there has been less attention dedicated to genomic data. Thus, the goal of this paper is to provide a systematization of knowledge for the computer science community. In doing so, we address some of the (sometimes erroneous) beliefs of this field and we report on a survey we conducted about genome data privacy with biomedical specialists. Then, after characterizing the genome privacy problem, we review the state-of-the-art regarding privacy attacks on genomic data and strategies for mitigating such attacks, as well as contextualizing these attacks from the perspective of medicine and public policy. This paper concludes with an enumeration of the challenges for genome data privacy and presents a framework to systematize the analysis of threats and the design of countermeasures as the field moves forward

Hospitals, Health Care Professionals, and Aids: the Right to Know the Health Status of Professionals and Patients

This article addresses why patients and health care professionals (HCPs) with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) should have autonomy and privacy rights to choose whether to consent to an HIV test and to disclose their serologic status. It also demonstrates that the risk of HIV transmission in health care settings is exceedingly low, that it is probably lower than other well-accepted risks taken by patients and professionals, and that there are other less intrusive ways to further reduce the risk. The article concludes that knowledge of a patient\u27s serologic status is unlikely to reduce risk, since no effective action could be taken with the information. Balanced against the negligible public health benefit of a right to know are significant personal, financial, and social costs of screening programs

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care

Objectives To measure the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of providing care in a chest pain observation unit compared with routine care for patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain. Design Cluster randomised controlled trial, with 442 days randomised to the chest pain observation unit or routine care, and cost effectiveness analysis from a health service costing perspective. Setting The emergency department at the Northern General Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Participants 972 patients with acute, undifferentiated chest pain (479 attending on days when care was delivered in the chest pain observation unit, 493 on days of routine care) followed up until six months after initial attendance. Main outcome measures The proportion of participants admitted to hospital, the proportion with acute coronary syndrome sent home inappropriately, major adverse cardiac events over six months, health utility, hospital reattendance and readmission, and costs per patient to the health service. Results Use of a chest pain observation unit reduced the proportion of patients admitted from 54% to 37% (difference 17%, odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.65, P < 0.001) and the proportion discharged with acute coronary syndrome from 14% to 6% (8%, –7% to 23%, P = 0.264). Rates of cardiac event were unchanged. Care in the chest pain observation unit was associated with improved health utility during follow up (0.0137 quality adjusted life years gained, 95% confidence interval 0.0030 to 0.0254, P = 0.022) and a saving of £78 per patient (–£56 to £210, P = 0.252). Conclusions Care in a chest pain observation unit can improve outcomes and may reduce costs to the health service. It seems to be more effective and more cost effective than routine care