Cargando…

How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations

BACKGROUND: It is well known that many healthcare systems have poor reliability; however, the size and pervasiveness of this problem and its impact has not been systematically established in the UK. The authors studied four clinical systems: clinical information in surgical outpatient clinics, presc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burnett, Susan, Franklin, Bryony Dean, Moorthy, Krishna, Cooke, Matthew W, Vincent, Charles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22495099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000442
_version_ 1782233355983519744
author Burnett, Susan
Franklin, Bryony Dean
Moorthy, Krishna
Cooke, Matthew W
Vincent, Charles
author_facet Burnett, Susan
Franklin, Bryony Dean
Moorthy, Krishna
Cooke, Matthew W
Vincent, Charles
author_sort Burnett, Susan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: It is well known that many healthcare systems have poor reliability; however, the size and pervasiveness of this problem and its impact has not been systematically established in the UK. The authors studied four clinical systems: clinical information in surgical outpatient clinics, prescribing for hospital inpatients, equipment in theatres, and insertion of peripheral intravenous lines. The aim was to describe the nature, extent and variation in reliability of these four systems in a sample of UK hospitals, and to explore the reasons for poor reliability. METHODS: Seven UK hospital organisations were involved; each system was studied in three of these. The authors took delivery of the systems' intended outputs to be a proxy for the reliability of the system as a whole. For example, for clinical information, 100% reliability was defined as all patients having an agreed list of clinical information available when needed during their appointment. Systems factors were explored using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Common themes across the systems were identified. RESULTS: Overall reliability was found to be between 81% and 87% for the systems studied, with significant variation between organisations for some systems: clinical information in outpatient clinics ranged from 73% to 96%; prescribing for hospital inpatients 82–88%; equipment availability in theatres 63–88%; and availability of equipment for insertion of peripheral intravenous lines 80–88%. One in five reliability failures were associated with perceived threats to patient safety. Common factors causing poor reliability included lack of feedback, lack of standardisation, and issues such as access to information out of working hours. CONCLUSIONS: Reported reliability was low for the four systems studied, with some common factors behind each. However, this hides significant variation between organisations for some processes, suggesting that some organisations have managed to create more reliable systems. Standardisation of processes would be expected to have significant benefit.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3355340
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher BMJ Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33553402012-05-18 How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations Burnett, Susan Franklin, Bryony Dean Moorthy, Krishna Cooke, Matthew W Vincent, Charles BMJ Qual Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: It is well known that many healthcare systems have poor reliability; however, the size and pervasiveness of this problem and its impact has not been systematically established in the UK. The authors studied four clinical systems: clinical information in surgical outpatient clinics, prescribing for hospital inpatients, equipment in theatres, and insertion of peripheral intravenous lines. The aim was to describe the nature, extent and variation in reliability of these four systems in a sample of UK hospitals, and to explore the reasons for poor reliability. METHODS: Seven UK hospital organisations were involved; each system was studied in three of these. The authors took delivery of the systems' intended outputs to be a proxy for the reliability of the system as a whole. For example, for clinical information, 100% reliability was defined as all patients having an agreed list of clinical information available when needed during their appointment. Systems factors were explored using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Common themes across the systems were identified. RESULTS: Overall reliability was found to be between 81% and 87% for the systems studied, with significant variation between organisations for some systems: clinical information in outpatient clinics ranged from 73% to 96%; prescribing for hospital inpatients 82–88%; equipment availability in theatres 63–88%; and availability of equipment for insertion of peripheral intravenous lines 80–88%. One in five reliability failures were associated with perceived threats to patient safety. Common factors causing poor reliability included lack of feedback, lack of standardisation, and issues such as access to information out of working hours. CONCLUSIONS: Reported reliability was low for the four systems studied, with some common factors behind each. However, this hides significant variation between organisations for some processes, suggesting that some organisations have managed to create more reliable systems. Standardisation of processes would be expected to have significant benefit. BMJ Group 2012-04-11 2012-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3355340/ /pubmed/22495099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000442 Text en © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
spellingShingle Original Research
Burnett, Susan
Franklin, Bryony Dean
Moorthy, Krishna
Cooke, Matthew W
Vincent, Charles
How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations
title How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations
title_full How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations
title_fullStr How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations
title_full_unstemmed How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations
title_short How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations
title_sort how reliable are clinical systems in the uk nhs? a study of seven nhs organisations
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3355340/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22495099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000442
work_keys_str_mv AT burnettsusan howreliableareclinicalsystemsintheuknhsastudyofsevennhsorganisations
AT franklinbryonydean howreliableareclinicalsystemsintheuknhsastudyofsevennhsorganisations
AT moorthykrishna howreliableareclinicalsystemsintheuknhsastudyofsevennhsorganisations
AT cookemattheww howreliableareclinicalsystemsintheuknhsastudyofsevennhsorganisations
AT vincentcharles howreliableareclinicalsystemsintheuknhsastudyofsevennhsorganisations