Search

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has made well-fitting face masks a critical piece of protective equipment for healthcare workers and civilians. While the importance of wearing face masks has been acknowledged, there remains a lack of understanding about the role of good fit in rendering protective equipment useful. In addition, supply chain constraints have caused some organizations to abandon traditional quantitative or/and qualitative fit testing, and instead, have implemented subjective fit checking. Our study seeks to quantitatively evaluate the level of fit offered by various types of masks, and most importantly, assess the accuracy of implementing fit checks by comparing fit check results to quantitative fit testing results. Methods Seven participants first evaluated N95 and KN95 respirators by performing a fit check. Participants then underwent quantitative fit testing wearing five N95 respirators, a KN95 respirator, a surgical mask, and fabric masks. Results N95 respirators offered higher degrees of protection than the other categories of masks tested; however, it should be noted that most N95 respirators failed to fit the participants adequately. Fit check responses had poor correlation with quantitative fit factor scores. KN95, surgical, and fabric masks achieved low fit factor scores, with little protective difference recorded between respiratory protection options. In addition, small facial differences were observed to have a significant impact on quantitative fit. Conclusion Fit is critical to the level of protection offered by respirators. For an N95 respirator to provide the promised protection, it must fit the participant. Performing a fit check via NHS self-assessment guidelines was an unreliable way of determining fit.

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) for people with COPD leads to clinically significant improvements in quality of life and exercise capacity [1]. In England and Wales, UK, in 2013–2014, only 15% of eligible patients were referred (51% from primary care), of whom 31% did not attend assessment [2]. We aimed to generate a theory-informed understanding of enablers and barriers to PR referral and uptake from primary care., Healthcare service and patient barriers contribute to low referral to and uptake of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Solutions should support skilled clinician–patient conversations and span primary care–PR boundaries to prevent disjointed working. http://bit.ly/2PVKHZf

Objective While many system mapping approaches (SMAs) have been broadly used in safety-critical industries, few have so far been employed in the healthcare field to assist in the identification of patient safety risks. In this study, we evaluated a set of system modelling approaches to assess their potential contribution to the identification of risks affecting patient safety. The aim was to gain a greater understanding of the practical application of system modelling approaches with the help of the risk categorization framework developed in this study. Setting We conducted this study in a newly established Adult Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) service at Cambridge and Peterborough Foundation Trust. Study participants Eight key stakeholders of the chosen service, including clinicians, managers and administrative staff, were individually asked to evaluate a set of pre-defined six SMAs according to their usefulness in identifying patient safety risks through interview-based questionnaires. Results It was found that each SMA could be useful in the chosen healthcare service in different ways. Further, specific types of diagrams were selected by stakeholders as more useful than others in identifying different sources of risks within the given system. Conclusions The results of the evaluation showed that the system diagram is the most useful SMA in risk identification within the given system, while limited time, resources and experience of stakeholders with SMAs may present possible obstacles for their potential use in the healthcare field in future.

In healthcare, risk assessment is used alongside a number of reactive risk management approaches to ensure the quality and safety of the care delivered. However, problems have been identified regarding its current application in hospitals, despite the considerable efforts made. In this paper, we present a framework that aims to address these current challenges and to guide staff working in healthcare settings in undertaking an effective risk assessment in hospitals. We report on the design of this framework, where we used a V developmental model, in conjunction with mixed methods, including interviews, document analysis and group discussions. The framework consists of a risk assessment model that depicts the main risk assessment steps; risk assessment explanation cards that provide prompts to help apply each step; and a risk assessment form that helps to systematise the risk assessment and document the findings. We also report on the evaluation of the framework, which shows promising results. While the framework was recommended for use in practice, it was also suggested that it would be helpful as a training tool. With its use in risk assessment, we anticipate that risk assessments would lead to more effective decisions being made, and, thus, to more appropriate actions being taken to minimise risks. Consequently, the quality and safety of care delivered would be improved., National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East of England

IntroductionChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive lung disease associated with breathlessness, inability to exercise, frequent infections, hospitalisation and reduced quality of life. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), providing supervised exercise and education, is an effective and cost-effective treatment for COPD but is significantly underused. Interventions to improve referral and uptake have been tested and some positive results reported. However, interventions are diverse and no clear recommendations for practice can be made. This study aims to understand the challenges to referral and uptake in primary care, where most referrals originate, and to develop a flexible toolkit of resources to support referral and uptake to PR in primary care in the UK.Methods and analysisThis is a mixed methods study informed by normalisation process theory and burden of treatment theory. In the first phase, general practitioners, practice nurses and PR providers will be invited to complete an online survey to inform a broad exploration of the topic areas. In phase 2 interviews and focus groups will be conducted with patients, healthcare professionals (HCP) in primary care, PR providers and commissioners to gain an in-depth understanding of the issues and needs. Toolkit development in phase 3 will draw together the learning from phases 1 and 2 and employ an iterative development process to build the toolkit jointly with patients and HCPs. It will be tested in primary care for usability and acceptability.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical and Health Research Authority approval (Research Ethics Committee reference number 17/EE/0136). It is registered with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study Number (ISRCTN) registry (trial ID:ISRCTN20669629, assignment date 20 March 2018, trial start date 1 April 2016). Dissemination will be aimed at patients, carers/families, service providers, commissioners and national interest groups. Methods will include conferences, presentations, academic publications and plain English reports and will be supported by the British Lung Foundation.Trial registration numberISRCTN20669629; Pre-results.

In healthcare, patient safety has received substantial attention and, in turn, a number of approaches to managing safety have been adopted from other high-risk industries. One of these has been risk assessment, predominantly through the use of risk matrices. However, while other industries have criticized the design and use of these risk matrices, the applicability of such criticism has not been investigated formally in healthcare. This study examines risk matrices as used in acute hospitals in England and the guidance provided for their use. It investigates the applicability of criticisms of risk matrices from outside healthcare through a document analysis of the risk assessment policies, procedures, and strategies used in English hospitals. The findings reveal that there is a large variety of risk matrices used, where the design of some might increase the chance of risk misprioritization. Additionally, findings show that hospitals may provide insufficient guidance on how to use risk matrices as well as what to do in response to the existing criticisms of risk matrices. Consequently, this is likely to lead to variation in the quality of risk assessment and in the subsequent deployment of resources to manage the assessed risk. Finally, the article outlines ways in which hospitals could use risk matrices more effectively.

Medicine is increasingly complex, involving a highly connected system of people, resources, processes, and institutions. Attempts to improve care involve disruptions to this system, with the potential for wide-ranging consequences, both positive and negative. Despite this, many improvement methodologies are poorly equipped to manage either complexity or risk – instead focusing on discrete interventions whose effects are narrowly monitored. Engineers have long understood that complex problems require a systems view, and that attempts to make things better can themselves introduce new risk into a system. Given this, an engineering systems approach may be of significant value to those trying to improve healthcare. Two fundamental questions emerge from such an approach: what can we do better, and what could possibly go wrong? This paper describes the evolution of a systems approach to healthcare, and explores a recently co-developed framework outlining a systems approach based upon a synergy between healthcare and engineering.

Although relatively rare, surgical instrument retention inside a patient following Central Venous Catheterisation still presents a significant risk. The research presented here compared two approaches to help reduce retention risk: Bow-Tie Analysis and Systems- Theoretic Accident Model and Processes. Each method was undertaken separately and then the results of the two approaches were compared and combined. Both approaches produced beneficial results that added to existing domain knowledge, and a combination of the two methods was found to be beneficial. For example, the bow-tie analysis gave an overview of which activities keep controls working and who is responsible for each control, and the Systems-Theoretic Accident Model and Processes revealed the safety constraints that were not enforced by the supervisor of the controlled process. Such two-way feedback between both methods is potentially helpful for improving patient safety. Further methodology ideas to minimise surgical instrument retention risks are also described.

Current risk identification practices applied to patient safety in healthcare are insufficient. The situation can be improved, however, by studying systems approaches broadly and successfully utilised in other safety-critical industries, such as aviation and chemical industries. To illustrate this, this paper first investigates current risk identification practices in the healthcare field, and then examines the potential of systems approaches. A systems-based approach, called the Risk Identification Framework (RID Framework), is then developed to enhance improvement in risk identification. Demonstrating the strengths of using multiple inputs and methods, the RID Framework helps to facilitate the proactive identification of new risks. In this study, the potential value of the RID Framework is discussed by examining its application and evaluation, as conducted in a real-world healthcare setting. Both the application and evaluation of the RID Framework indicate positive results, as well as the need for further research.

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is widely used to improve patient safety, but healthcare workers are not trained to design robust solutions to the risks they uncover. This leads to an overreliance on the weakest category of risk control recommendations: administrative controls. Increasing the proportion of non-administrative risk control options (NARCOs) generated would enable (though not ensure) the adoption of more robust solutions. OBJECTIVES: Experimentally assess a method for generating stronger risk controls: The Generating Options for Active Risk Control (GO-ARC) Technique. METHODS: Participants generated risk control options in response to two patient safety scenarios. Scenario 1 (baseline): All participants used current practice (unstructured brainstorming). Scenario 2: Control group used current practice; intervention group used the GO-ARC Technique. To control for individual differences between participants, analysis focused on the change in the proportion of NARCOs for each group. RESULTS: CONTROL GROUP: Proportion of NARCOs decreased from 0.18 at baseline to 0.12. Intervention group: Proportion increased from 0.10 at baseline to 0.29 using the GO-ARC Technique. Results were statistically significant. There was no decrease in the number of administrative controls generated by the intervention group. CONCLUSION: The Generating Options for Active Risk Control (GO-ARC) Technique appears to lead to more robust risk control options.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare, a range of methods are used to improve patient safety through risk identification within the scope of risk management. However, there is no evidence determining what trust-level guidance exists to support risk identification in healthcare organisations. This study therefore aimed to determine such methods through the content analysis of trust-level risk management documents. METHOD: Through Freedom of Information Act, risk management documents were requested from each acute, mental health and ambulance trust in the East of England region of NHS for content analysis. Received documents were also compared with guidance from other safety-critical industries to capture differences between the documents from those industries, and learning points to the healthcare field. RESULTS: A total of forty-eight documents were received from twenty-one trusts. Incident reporting was found as the main method for risk identification. The documents provided insufficient support for the use of prospective risk identification methods, such as Prospective Hazard Analysis (PHA) methods, while the guidance from other industries extensively promoted such methods. CONCLUSION: The documents provided significant insight into prescribed risk identification practice in the chosen region. Based on the content analysis and guidance from other safety-critical industries, a number of recommendations were made; such as introducing the use of PHA methods in the creation and revision of risk management documents, and providing individual guidance on risk identification to promote patient safety further.