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

Developing minimum clinical standards for physiotherapy in South African ICUs: A qualitative study

Rationale, aims, and objectives: Physiotherapists are integral members of the intensive care unit (ICU) team. Clinicians working in ICU are dependent on their own experience when making decisions regarding individual patient management thus resulting in variation in clinical practice. No formalized clinical practice guidelines or standards exist for the educational profile or scope of practice requirements for ICU physiotherapy. This study explored perceptions of physiotherapists on minimum clinical standards that ICU physiotherapists should adhere to for delivering safe, effective physiotherapy services to critically ill patients. Method: Experienced physiotherapists offering a service to South African ICUs were purposively sampled. Three focus group sessions were held in different parts of the country to ensure national participation. Each was audio recorded. The stimulus question posed was “What is the minimum standard of clinical practice needed by physiotherapists to ensure safe and independent practice in South African ICUs?” Three categories were explored, namely, knowledge, skill, and attributes. Themes and subthemes were developed using the codes identified. An inductive approach to data analysis was used to perform conventional content analysis. Results: Twenty-five physiotherapists participated in 1 of 3 focus group sessions. Mean years of ICU experience was 10.8 years (±7.0; range, 3-33). Three themes emerged from the data namely, integrated medical knowledge, multidisciplinary teamwork, and physiotherapy practice. Integrated medical knowledge related to anatomy and physiology, conditions that patients present with in ICU, the ICU environment, pathology and pathophysiology, and pharmacology. Multidisciplinary teamwork encompassed elements related to communication, continuous professional development, cultural sensitivity, documentation, ethics, professionalism, safety in ICU, and technology. Components related to physiotherapy practice included clinical reasoning, handling skills, interventions, and patient care. Conclusions: The information obtained will be used to inform the development of a list of standards to be presented to the wider national physiotherapy and ICU communities for further consensus-building activities

A safer place for patients: learning to improve patient safety

1 Every day over one million people are treated successfully by National Health Service (NHS) acute, ambulance and mental health trusts. However, healthcare relies on a range of complex interactions of people, skills, technologies and drugs, and sometimes things do go wrong. For most countries, patient safety is now the key issue in healthcare quality and risk management. The Department of Health (the Department) estimates that one in ten patients admitted to NHS hospitals will be unintentionally harmed, a rate similar to other developed countries. Around 50 per cent of these patient safety incidentsa could have been avoided, if only lessons from previous incidents had been learned. 2 There are numerous stakeholders with a role in keeping patients safe in the NHS, many of whom require trusts to report details of patient safety incidents and near misses to them (Figure 2). However, a number of previous National Audit Office reports have highlighted concerns that the NHS has limited information on the extent and impact of clinical and non-clinical incidents and trusts need to learn from these incidents and share good practice across the NHS more effectively (Appendix 1). 3 In 2000, the Chief Medical Officer’s report An organisation with a memory 1 , identified that the key barriers to reducing the number of patient safety incidents were an organisational culture that inhibited reporting and the lack of a cohesive national system for identifying and sharing lessons learnt. 4 In response, the Department published Building a safer NHS for patients3 detailing plans and a timetable for promoting patient safety. The goal was to encourage improvements in reporting and learning through the development of a new mandatory national reporting scheme for patient safety incidents and near misses. Central to the plan was establishing the National Patient Safety Agency to improve patient safety by reducing the risk of harm through error. The National Patient Safety Agency was expected to: collect and analyse information; assimilate other safety-related information from a variety of existing reporting systems; learn lessons and produce solutions. 5 We therefore examined whether the NHS has been successful in improving the patient safety culture, encouraging reporting and learning from patient safety incidents. Key parts of our approach were a census of 267 NHS acute, ambulance and mental health trusts in Autumn 2004, followed by a re-survey in August 2005 and an omnibus survey of patients (Appendix 2). We also reviewed practices in other industries (Appendix 3) and international healthcare systems (Appendix 4), and the National Patient Safety Agency’s progress in developing its National Reporting and Learning System (Appendix 5) and other related activities (Appendix 6). 6 An organisation with a memory1 was an important milestone in the NHS’s patient safety agenda and marked the drive to improve reporting and learning. At the local level the vast majority of trusts have developed a predominantly open and fair reporting culture but with pockets of blame and scope to improve their strategies for sharing good practice. Indeed in our re-survey we found that local performance had continued to improve with more trusts reporting having an open and fair reporting culture, more trusts with open reporting systems and improvements in perceptions of the levels of under-reporting. At the national level, progress on developing the national reporting system for learning has been slower than set out in the Department’s strategy of 2001 3 and there is a need to improve evaluation and sharing of lessons and solutions by all organisations with a stake in patient safety. There is also no clear system for monitoring that lessons are learned at the local level. Specifically: a The safety culture within trusts is improving, driven largely by the Department’s clinical governance initiative 4 and the development of more effective risk management systems in response to incentives under initiatives such as the NHS Litigation Authority’s Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (Appendix 7). However, trusts are still predominantly reactive in their response to patient safety issues and parts of some organisations still operate a blame culture. b All trusts have established effective reporting systems at the local level, although under-reporting remains a problem within some groups of staff, types of incidents and near misses. The National Patient Safety Agency did not develop and roll out the National Reporting and Learning System by December 2002 as originally envisaged. All trusts were linked to the system by 31 December 2004. By August 2005, at least 35 trusts still had not submitted any data to the National Reporting and Learning System. c Most trusts pointed to specific improvements derived from lessons learnt from their local incident reporting systems, but these are still not widely promulgated, either within or between trusts. The National Patient Safety Agency has provided only limited feedback to trusts of evidence-based solutions or actions derived from the national reporting system. It published its first feedback report from the Patient Safety Observatory in July 2005

Drivers for change in primary care of diabetes following a protected learning time educational event: interview study of practitioners

Background: A number of protected learning time schemes have been set up in primary care across the United Kingdom but there has been little published evidence of their impact on processes of care. We undertook a qualitative study to investigate the perceptions of practitioners involved in a specific educational intervention in diabetes as part of a protected learning time scheme for primary health care teams, relating to changing processes of diabetes care in general practice. Methods: We undertook semistructured interviews of key informants from a sample of practices stratified according to the extent they had changed behaviour in prescribing of ramipril and diabetes care more generally, following a specific educational intervention in Lincolnshire, United Kingdom. Interviews sought information on facilitators and barriers to change in organisational behaviour for the care of diabetes. Results: An interprofessional protected learning time scheme event was perceived by some but not all participants as bringing about changes in processes for diabetes care. Participants cited examples of change introduced partly as a result of the educational session. This included using ACE inhibitors as first line for patients with diabetes who developed hypertension, increased use of aspirin, switching patients to glitazones, and conversion to insulin either directly or by referral to secondary care. Other reported factors for change, unrelated to the educational intervention, included financially driven performance targets, research evidence and national guidance. Facilitators for change linked to the educational session were peer support and teamworking supported by audit and comparative feedback. Conclusion: This study has shown how a protected learning time scheme, using interprofessional learning, local opinion leaders and early implementers as change agents may have influenced changes in systems of diabetes care in selected practices but also how other confounding factors played an important part in changes that occurred in practice

Perceptions of a service redesign by adults living with type 2 diabetes

<b>Aim:</b> This article is a report of a study conducted to explore the perceptions of adults with type 2 diabetes towards the service redesign. <b>Background:</b> Diabetes is reaching epidemic proportions and the management of this chronic illness is changing in response to this challenge. In the United Kingdom, there is ongoing restructuring of healthcare services for people with chronic illnesses to ensure that their general health and clinical needs are met predominantly in primary care. <b>Method:</b> An explorative qualitative approach was used. Eight focus groups were conducted with 35 people with type 2 diabetes in one urban location between 2003 and 2004. Five focus groups were conducted with people who had recently experienced the restructured service and three groups with people who had up to 2 years' experience of the new service. Concurrent data collection and thematic analysis were conducted by three researchers and credibility and verification sought by feedback to participants. <b>Findings:</b> Five main themes were identified: impact of living with diabetes; understanding diabetes; drivers for organizational change; care in context and individual concerns. Participants identified issues for ongoing development of the service. <b>Conclusion:</b> People with type 2 diabetes appreciate their care management within the primary care setting where there has been investment in staff to deliver this care. Healthcare resources are required to support the development of staff and the necessary infrastructure to undertake management in primary care. Policy makers need to address the balance of resources between primary and secondary care

Factors influencing the inclusion of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in undergraduate medical education

Objective To investigate the views and practices of UK medical schools regarding the inclusion (or exclusion) of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in undergraduate medical curricula. Design Survey (by email) of UK medical schools offering MBBS (or equivalent) degrees. Results The overall response rate was 58.1% (18/31). All respondents indicated that their curricula included CAM elements. However, the quantity of CAM within curricula varied widely between medical schools, as did the methods by which CAM education was delivered. General Medical Council requirements were the strongest factor influencing the inclusion of CAM, although medical student preferences were also important. Respondents were generally satisfied with the extent of CAM provision within their curricula, while a wide range of views on the appropriateness of CAM in the medical curriculum were held by faculty members. Conclusions It may be useful for the General Medical Council to clarify the extent to which CAM should be incorporated into the curriculum. Current CAM education appears to exist primarily as a means of educating future doctors on the modalities that their patients may use or request. However, some forms of pedagogy arguably risk students assimilating CAM advocacy in an uncritical fashion