Who is teaching and supervising our junior residents' central venous catheterizations?

Article deposited according to agreement with BMC, December 6, 2010.YesFunding provided by the Open Access Authors Fund

Applying the trigger review method after a brief educational intervention: potential for teaching and improving safety in GP specialty training?

<p>Background: The Trigger Review Method (TRM) is a structured approach to screening clinical records for undetected patient safety incidents (PSIs) and identifying learning and improvement opportunities. In Scotland, TRM participation can inform GP appraisal and has been included as a core component of the national primary care patient safety programme that was launched in March 2013. However, the clinical workforce needs up-skilled and the potential of TRM in GP training has yet to be tested. Current TRM training utilizes a workplace face-to-face session by a GP expert, which is not feasible. A less costly, more sustainable educational intervention is necessary to build capability at scale. We aimed to determine the feasibility and impact of TRM and a related training intervention in GP training.</p> Methods We recruited 25 west of Scotland GP trainees to attend a 2-hour TRM workshop. Trainees then applied TRM to 25 clinical records and returned findings within 4-weeks. A follow-up feedback workshop was held. <p>Results: 21/25 trainees (84%) completed the task. 520 records yielded 80 undetected PSIs (15.4%). 36/80 were judged potentially preventable (45%) with 35/80 classified as causing moderate to severe harm (44%). Trainees described a range of potential learning and improvement plans. Training was positively received and appeared to be successful given these findings. TRM was valued as a safety improvement tool by most participants.</p> <p>Conclusion: This small study provides further evidence of TRM utility and how to teach it pragmatically. TRM is of potential value in GP patient safety curriculum delivery and preparing trainees for future safety improvement expectations.</p&gt

Standardised proformas improve patient handover: Audit of trauma handover practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The implementation of the European Working Time Directive has meant the introduction of shift patterns of working for junior doctors. Patient handover between shifts has become a necessary part of practice in order to reduce the risk of medical errors. Data handed over between shifts are used to prioritise clinical jobs outstanding, and to create theatre lists. We present a closed-loop audit of handover practice to assess whether standardised proformas improve clinical data transfer between shifts during handover in our Orthopaedic Unit.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We collected data handed over between shifts for a period of one week at our department. The data were in the form of hand written data on plain paper used to assist verbal handover. Data were analysed and a standardised handover sheet was trialled. After feedback from juniors the sheet was revised and implemented. A re-audit, of handover data, was then undertaken using the revised standardised proforma during a period of 1 week.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-eight patients were handed over in week 1 while 55 patients were handed over during re-audit. The standardised proformas encouraged use of pre-printed patient labels which contained legible patient identifiers, use of labels increased from 72.9% to 93.4%. Handover of outstanding jobs increased from 31.25% to 100%. Overall data handed over increased from 72.6% to 93.2%. Handover of relevant blood results showed little improvement from 18.8% to 20.7%</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This audit highlights the issue of data transfer between shifts. Standardised proformas encourage filling of relevant fields and increases the data transferred between shifts thereby reducing the potential for clinical error cause by shift patterns.</p

The epidemiology of reoperations for orthopaedic trauma.

Introduction: The Royal College of Surgeons of England (RCS) has issued guidance regarding the use of reoperation rates in the revalidation of UK-based orthopaedic surgeons. Currently, little has been published concerning acceptable rates of reoperation following primary surgical management of orthopaedic trauma, particularly with reference to revalidation. / Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of patients undergoing clearly defined reoperations following primary surgical management of trauma between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011. A full case note review was undertaken to establish the demographics, clinical course and context of reoperation. A review of the imaging was performed to establish whether the procedure performed was in line with accepted trauma practice and whether the technical execution was acceptable. / Results: A total of 3,688 patients underwent primary procedures within the time period studied while 70 (1.90%, 99% CI: 1.39–2.55) required an unplanned reoperation. Thirty-nine (56%) of these patients were male. The mean age of patients was 56 years (range: 18–98 years) and there was a median time to reoperation of 50 days (IQR: 13–154 days). Potentially avoidable reoperations occurred in 41 patients (58.6%, 99% CI: 43.2–72.6). This was largely due to technical errors (40 patients, 57.1%, 99% CI: 41.8–71.3), representing 1.11% (99% CI: 0.73–1.64) of the total trauma workload. Within RCS guidelines, 28-day reoperation rates for hip, wrist and ankle fractures were 1.4% (99% CI: 0.5–3.3), 3.5% (99% CI: 0.8%–12.1) and 1.86% (99% CI: 0.4–6.6) respectively. / Conclusions: We present novel work that has established baseline reoperation rates for index procedures required for revalidation of orthopaedic surgeons

The effectiveness of laser therapy on the management of chronic low back pain

yesBackground/Aim: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a global musculoskeletal challenge, resulting in pain and disability on individuals. Laser therapy can be used to treat CLBP. This review evaluates the effectiveness of laser therapy including high level laser therapy (HLLT) and low level laser therapy (LLLT) on CLBP in relation to pain or functional disability. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED and PEDro from their start to June 2015. All studies that met predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were appraised with The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tools in June, 2015. Findings: Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria: two RCTs reported significant improvement in pain and functional disability with the use of HLLT but with small sample size (n=103); one RCTs (n=61) reported significant improvement and three RCTs (n=215) reported insignificant improvement in pain and functional disability with the use of LLLT. Conclusion: On the strength of the evidence available HLLT and LLLT are not currently recommended to be replaced or be offered in addition to conventional treatment. Further rigorous research is required to confirm the potential use of laser therapy on individuals presenting with CLBP

The audit process and medical organisation

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund and is available from the specified link - Copyright © 1992 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd