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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |