Safer clinical systems : interim report, August 2010

Safer Clinical Systems is the Health Foundation’s new five year programme of work to test and demonstrate ways to improve healthcare systems and processes, to develop safer systems that improve patient safety. It builds on learning from the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI) and models of system improvement from both healthcare and other industries. Learning from the SPI highlighted the need to take a clinical systems approach to improving safety. SPI highlighted that many hospitals struggle to implement improvement in clinical areas due to inherent problems with support mechanisms. Clinical processes and systems, rather than individuals, are often the contributors to breakdown in patient safety. The Safer Clinical Systems programme aimed to measure the reliability of clinical processes, identify defects within those processes, and identify the systems that result in those defects. Methods to improve system reliability were then to be tested and re-developed in order to reduce the risk of harm being caused to patients. Such system-level awareness should lead to improvements in other patient care pathways. The relationship between system reliability and actual harm is challenging to identify and measure. Specific, well-defined, small-scale processes have been used in other programmes, and system reliability has been shown to have a direct causal relationship with harm (e.g. care bundle compliance in an intensive care unit can reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia). However, it has become evident that harm can be caused by a variety of factors over time; when working in broader, more complex and dynamic systems, change in outcome can be difficult to attribute to specific improvements and difficulties are also associated with relating evidence to resulting harm. The overall aim of Phase 1 of the Safer Clinical Systems programme was to demonstrate proof-of-concept that using a systems-based approach could contribute to improved patient safety. In Phase 1, experienced NHS teams from four locations worked together with expert advisers to co-design the Safer Clinical Systems programme

Use of simulation to investigate resourcing priorities and bed use in generic models of elective and emergency clinical pathways

Objectives - to assess whether alternative methods of prioritising patients affects length of stay and bed use in simulation models of elective and emergency care pathways Design - generic elective and emergency care pathways were modelled using process simulation software Main outcome measures - length of stay, staff utilisation, bed occupancy Results - Where admission priority (giving priority to bringing in new patients for start of treatment with priority reducing through to discharge) was used in a model of elective procedures length of stay continued to increase as bed numbers were increased despite the number of patients being treated and staff utilisation reaching a plateau at a lower bed number. Bed occupancy was consistently close to maximum even when an escalation or “unblocking” strategy was used to switch priority to the discharge step when there were few free beds available. Restricting bed numbers could avoid the increased length of stay. When discharge priority (always giving highest priority to discharge activities, with priority reducing back to admitting new patients) was used in the same elective surgery model length of stay was significantly reduced and length of stay and bed occupancy did not continue to rise as more beds were made available. When patient arrival was scheduled each day to match available clinical staff, application of discharge priority reduced length of stay and bed occupancy by about a third compared to admission priority. In an emergency care setting (where there is no control over patient arrival) length of stay within the emergency department increased as patient arrival rate increased with large increases in waiting time observed above 80% capacity utilisation. Application of discharge priority (for non-urgent cases) reduced average length of stay by a third or more compared to admission priority at high capacity utilisation. Conclusions – the modelling suggests that the length of stay in elective wards or emergency departments and bed occupancy in elective wards may be significantly reduced by, in the absence of other urgent medical need, constantly giving highest priority to discharge activities, with reducing priority back through the care pathway. An escalation strategy of bed unblocking (prioritising discharge activities only when bed occupancy is close to maximum) may have little impact on overall length of stay

Minor head injury in the Republic of Ireland : evaluation of written information given at discharge from emergency departments

Most patients presenting to the emergency department with minor head injuries are discharged with written information. Here the quality of minor head injury discharge leaflets in the Republic of Ireland is evaluated against a nationally accepted template. There was great variability in leaflet content. Most provided minimal information on emergency symptoms but 60% contained no information on post-concussional symptoms. No leaflet was available in audio-format or languages other than English. Information provided in minor head injury leaflets should be improved and standardised across Ireland

The safe insertion of peripheral intravenous catheters : a mixed methods descriptive study of the availability of the equipment needed

Background: Intravenous cannulation is undertaken in a high proportion of hospitalised patients. Much international attention has been given to the use of care bundles to reduce the incidence of infection in these patients. However, less attention has been given to the systems required to ensure availability of the equipment needed to support these care bundles. Our objectives were to assess how reliably the equipment recommended for a peripheral intravenous care bundle was available for use, and to explore factors which contributed to its non-availability. Methods: We studied 350 peripheral cannula insertions in three NHS hospital organisations across the UK. Staff inserting cannulae were asked to report details of all equipment problems. Key staff were then interviewed to identify the causes of problems with equipment availability, using semi-structured qualitative interviews and a standard coding frame. Results: 47 equipment problems were recorded during 46 of 350 cannulations, corresponding to a reliability of 87%, or 94% if problems with sharps disposal were excluded. Overall reliability was similar in all three organisations, but the types of problem varied. Interviews revealed a variety of causes including issues associated with purchasing policies, storage facilities, and lack of teamwork and communication in relation to reordering. The many human factors related to the supply chain were highlighted. Often staff had adopted work-arounds to deal with these problems. Conclusions: Overall, 87% of cannulations had the correct and functional equipment available. Different problems were identified in different organisations, suggesting that each had resolved some issues. Supply chain management principles may be useful to support best practice in care bundle delivery. Keywords: Cannulation, Patient safety, Equipment, Care bundles, Hospital acquired bacteraemia, Systems reliabilit

The impact of co-located NHS walk-in centres on emergency departments

Objectives: To determine the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments on attendance rates, visit duration, process, costs and outcome of care. Methods: Eight hospitals with co-located emergency departments and walk-in centres were compared with eight matched emergency departments without walk-in centres. Site visits were conducted. Routine data about attendance numbers and use of resources were analysed. A random sample of records of patients attending before and after walk-in centres opened were also assessed. Patients who had not been admitted to hospital were sent a postal questionnaire. Results: In most sites, the walk-in centres did not have a distinct identity and there were few differences in the way services were provided compared with control sites. Overall, there was no evidence of an increase in attendance at sites with walk-in centres, but considerable variability across sites. The proportion of patients managed within the four-hour NHS target improved at sites both with and without walk-in centres. There was no evidence of any difference in re-consultation rates, costs of care or patient outcomes at sites with or without walk-in centres. Conclusions: Most hospitals in this study implemented the walk-in centre concept to a very limited extent. Consequently there was no evidence of any impact on attendance rates, process, costs or outcome of care

Comparing care at walk-in centres and at accident and emergency departments: an exploration of patient choice, preference and satisfaction

Objectives: To explore the impact of establishing walk-in centres alongside emergency departments on patient choice, preference and satisfaction. Methods: A controlled, mixed-method study comparing eight emergency departments with co-located walk-in centres with the same number of ‘traditional’ emergency departments. This paper focuses on the results of a cross-sectional questionnaire survey of users. Results: Survey data demonstrated that patients were frequently unable to distinguish between being treated at a walk-in centre or an A&E department, and even where this was the case, opportunities to exercise choice about their preferred care provider were often limited. Few made an active choice to attend a co-located walk-in centre. Patients attending walk-in centres were just as likely to be satisfied overall with the care they received as their counterparts who were treated in the co-located A&E facility, although a small proportion of walk-in centre users did report greater satisfaction with some specific aspects of their care and consultation. Conclusions: Whilst one of the key policy goals underpinning the co-location of walk-in centres next to an A&E department was to provide patients with more options for accessing healthcare and greater choice, leading in turn to increased satisfaction, this evaluation was able to provide little evidence to support this. The high percentage of patients expressing a preference for care in an established emergency department compared to a new walk-in centre facility raises questions for future policy development. Further consideration should therefore be given to the role that A&E focused walk-in centres play in the Department of Health’s current policy agenda, as far as patient choice is concerned

Clinical handover within the emergency care pathway and the potential risks of clinical handover failure (ECHO) : primary research

Background and objectives: Handover and communication failures are a recognised threat to patient safety. Handover in emergency care is a particularly vulnerable activity owing to the high-risk context and overcrowded conditions. In addition, handover frequently takes place across the boundaries of organisations that have different goals and motivations, and that exhibit different local cultures and behaviours. This study aimed to explore the risks associated with handover failure in the emergency care pathway, and to identify organisational factors that impact on the quality of handover. Methods: Three NHS emergency care pathways were studied. The study used a qualitative design. Risks were explored in nine focus group-based risk analysis sessions using failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). A total of 270 handovers between ambulance and the emergency department (ED), and the ED and acute medicine were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using conversation analysis. Organisational factors were explored through thematic analysis of semistructured interviews with a purposive convenience sample of 39 staff across the three pathways. Results: Handover can serve different functions, such as management of capacity and demand, transfer of responsibility and delegation of aspects of care, communication of different types of information, and the prioritisation of patients or highlighting of specific aspects of their care. Many of the identified handover failure modes are linked causally to capacity and patient flow issues. Across the sites, resuscitation handovers lasted between 38 seconds and 4 minutes, handovers for patients with major injuries lasted between 30 seconds and 6 minutes, and referrals to acute medicine lasted between 1 minute and approximately 7 minutes. Only between 1.5% and 5% of handover communication content related to the communication of social issues. Interview participants described a range of tensions inherent in handover that require dynamic trade-offs. These are related to documentation, the verbal communication, the transfer of responsibility and the different goals and motivations that a handover may serve. Participants also described the management of flow of patients and of information across organisational boundaries as one of the most important factors influencing the quality of handover. This includes management of patient flows in and out of departments, the influence of time-related performance targets, and the collaboration between organisations and departments. The two themes are related. The management of patient flow influences the way trade-offs around inner tensions are made, and, on the other hand, one of the goals of handover is ensuring adequate management of patient flows. Conclusions: The research findings suggest that handover should be understood as a sociotechnical activity embedded in clinical and organisational practice. Capacity, patient flow and national targets, and the quality of handover are intricately related, and should be addressed together. Improvement efforts should focus on providing practitioners with flexibility to make trade-offs in order to resolve tensions inherent in handover. Collaborative holistic system analysis and greater cultural awareness and collaboration across organisations should be pursued

A national survey of clinical practice for the management of whiplash-associated disorders in UK emergency departments

Objective: To undertake a national survey to determine current practice for the management of whiplash injuries in UK emergency departments (ED). Methods: Postal questionnaire survey. 316 lead consultants from all UK ED with annual new attendances of over 50 000 people were asked to indicate the use of a range of treatments and the frequency with which these treatments were used. Samples of written advice were requested and content analysis was conducted and compared with survey responses. Results: The response rate was 79% (251/316). The intervention most frequently used was verbal advice to exercise, reported by 84% of respondents for most or all cases, and advice against the use of a collar (83%). Other treatments reported as being used frequently were written advice and anti-inflammatory medication. 106 consultants (42%) provided a sample of written materials. Reference to expected recovery and encouragement for early return to activities were included in less than 6%. Nearly 50% of written materials contained information on how to use a soft collar and 61% contained information on solicitors and pursuing a personal injury claim. There were important differences between reported verbal behaviours and written advice. Conclusion: Verbal advice is the primary method for managing whiplash injuries in ED and is usually supplemented by written advice. Within individual hospitals there is a lack of consistency between verbal and written advice. The promotion of personal injury claims is a common feature of written advice. Research is required to develop effective and consistent models of advice

How safe are clinical systems?

Th is study was commissioned by the Health Foundation to examine the extent, type and causes of failures in reliability in different healthcare systems: failures which have the potential to create risk or cause patient harm

Learning from diagnostic errors to improve patient safety when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: incorporating realist methodology into patient safety incident report analysis

Background: Increasing demand on emergency healthcare systems has prompted introduction of new healthcare service models including the provision of GP services in or alongside emergency departments. In England this led to a policy proposal and £100million (US$130million) of funding for all emergency departments to have co-located GP services. However, there is a lack of evidence for whether such service models are effective and safe. We examined diagnostic errors reported in patient safety incident reports to develop theories to explain how and why they occurred to inform potential priority areas for improvement and inform qualitative data collection at case study sites to further refine the theories. Methods: We used a mixed-methods design using exploratory descriptive analysis to identify the most frequent and harmful sources of diagnostic error and thematic analysis, incorporating realist methodology to refine theories from an earlier rapid realist review, to describe how and why the events occurred and could be mitigated, to inform improvement recommendations. We used two UK data sources: Coroners’ reports to prevent future deaths (30.7.13–14.08.18) and National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) patient safety incident reports (03.01.05–30.11.15). Results: Nine Coroners’ reports (from 1347 community and hospital reports, 2013–2018) and 217 NRLS reports (from 13 million, 2005–2015) were identified describing diagnostic error related to GP services in or alongside emergency departments. Initial theories to describe potential priority areas for improvement included: difficulty identifying appropriate patients for the GP service; under-investigation and misinterpretation of diagnostic tests; and inadequate communication and referral pathways between the emergency and GP services. High-risk presentations included: musculoskeletal injury, chest pain, headache, calf pain and sick children. Conclusion: Initial theories include the following topics as potential priority areas for improvement interventions and evaluation to minimise the risk of diagnostic errors when GPs work in or alongside emergency departments: a standardised initial assessment with streaming guidance based on local service provision; clinical decision support for high-risk conditions; and standardised computer systems, communication and referral pathways between emergency and GP services. These theories require refinement and testing with qualitative data collection from case study (hospital) sites