Understanding adverse events: human factors. (73/10747)

(1) Human rather than technical failures now represent the greatest threat to complex and potentially hazardous systems. This includes healthcare systems. (2) Managing the human risks will never be 100% effective. Human fallibility can be moderated, but it cannot be eliminated. (3) Different error types have different underlying mechanisms, occur in different parts of the organisation, and require different methods of risk management. The basic distinctions are between: Slips, lapses, trips, and fumbles (execution failures) and mistakes (planning or problem solving failures). Mistakes are divided into rule based mistakes and knowledge based mistakes. Errors (information-handling problems) and violations (motivational problems) Active versus latent failures. Active failures are committed by those in direct contact with the patient, latent failures arise in organisational and managerial spheres and their adverse effects may take a long time to become evident. (4) Safety significant errors occur at all levels of the system, not just at the sharp end. Decisions made in the upper echelons of the organisation create the conditions in the workplace that subsequently promote individual errors and violations. Latent failures are present long before an accident and are hence prime candidates for principled risk management. (5) Measures that involve sanctions and exhortations (that is, moralistic measures directed to those at the sharp end) have only very limited effectiveness, especially so in the case of highly trained professionals. (6) Human factors problems are a product of a chain of causes in which the individual psychological factors (that is, momentary inattention, forgetting, etc) are the last and least manageable links. Attentional "capture" (preoccupation or distraction) is a necessary condition for the commission of slips and lapses. Yet, its occurrence is almost impossible to predict or control effectively. The same is true of the factors associated with forgetting. States of mind contributing to error are thus extremely difficult to manage; they can happen to the best of people at any time. (7) People do not act in isolation. Their behaviour is shaped by circumstances. The same is true for errors and violations. The likelihood of an unsafe act being committed is heavily influenced by the nature of the task and by the local workplace conditions. These, in turn, are the product of "upstream" organisational factors. Great gains in safety can ve achieved through relatively small modifications of equipment and workplaces. (8) Automation and increasing advanced equipment do not cure human factors problems, they merely relocate them. In contrast, training people to work effectively in teams costs little, but has achieved significant enhancements of human performance in aviation. (9) Effective risk management depends critically on a confidential and preferable anonymous incident monitoring system that records the individual, task, situational, and organisational factors associated with incidents and near misses. (10) Effective risk management means the simultaneous and targeted deployment of limited remedial resources at different levels of the system: the individual or team, the task, the situation, and the organisation as a whole.  (+info)

Audit activity and quality of completed audit projects in primary care in Staffordshire. (74/10747)

OBJECTIVES: To survey audit activity in primary care and determine which practice factors are associated with completed audit; to survey the quality of completed audit projects. DESIGN: From April 1992 to June 1993 a team from the medical audit advisory group visited all general practices; a research assistant visited each practice to study the best audit project. Data were collected in structured interviews. SETTING: Staffordshire, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: All 189 general practices. MAIN MEASURES: Audit activity using Oxford classification system. Quality of best audit project by assessing choice of topic; participation of practice staff; setting of standards; methods of data collection and presentation of results; whether a plan to make changes resulted from the audit; and whether changes led to the set standards being achieved. RESULTS: Audit information was available from 169 practices (89%). 44(26%) practices had carried out at least one full audit; 40(24%) had not started audit. Mean scores with the Oxford classification system were significantly higher with the presence of a practice manager (2.7(95% confidence interval 2.4 to 2.9) v 1.2(0.7 to 1.8), p < 0.0001) and with computerisation (2.8(2.5 to 3.1) v 1.4 (0.9 to 2.0), p < 0.0001), organised notes (2.6(2.1 to 3.0) v 1.7(7.2 to 2.2), p = 0.03), being a training practice (3.5(3.2 to 3.8) v 2.1(1.8 to 2.4), p < 0.0001), and being a partnership (2.8(2.6 to 3.0) v 1.5(1.1 to 2.0), p < 0.0001). Standards had been set in 62 of the 71 projects reviewed. Data were collected prospectively in 36 projects and retrospectively in 35. 16 projects entailed taking samples from a study population and 55 from the whole population. 50 projects had a written summary. Performance was less than the standards set or expected in 56 projects. 62 practices made changes as a result of the audit. 35 of the 53 that had reviewed the changes found that the original standards had been reached. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of audit in primary care should include evaluation of the methods used, whether deficiencies were identified, and whether changes were implemented to resolve any problems found.  (+info)

Assessing the work of medical audit advisory groups in promoting audit in general practice. (75/10747)

Objectives--To determine the role of medical audit advisory groups in audit activities in general practice. Design--Postal questionnaire survey. Subjects--All 104 advisory groups in England and Wales in 1994. Main measures--Monitoring audit: the methods used to classify audits, the methods used by the advisory group to collect data on audits from general practices, the proportion of practices undertaking audit. Directing and coordinating audits: topics and number of practices participating in multipractice audits. Results--The response rate was 86-5%. In 1993-4, 54% of the advisory groups used the Oxfordshire or Kirklees methods for classifying audits, or modifications of them. 99% of the advisory groups collected data on audit activities at least once between 1991-2 and 1993-4. Visits, questionnaires, and other methods were used to collect information from all or samples of practices in each of the advisory group's areas. Some advisory groups used different methods in different years. In 1991-2, 57% of all practices participated in some audit, in 1992-3, 78%, and in 1993-4, 86%. 428 multipractice audits were identified. The most popular topic was diabetes. Conclusions--Advisory groups have been active in monitoring audit in general practice. However, the methods used to classify and collect information about audits in general practices varied widely. The number of practices undertaking audit increased between 1991-2 and 1993 1. The large number of multipractice audits supports the view that the advisory groups have directed and coordinated audit activities. This example of a national audit programme for general practice may be helpful in other countries in which the introduction of quality assurance is being considered.  (+info)

Attitudes and behaviors towards clinical guidelines: the clinicians' perspective. (76/10747)

Objectives--To find out what attitudes hospital doctors have towards the culture of clinical guidelines; to ascertain perceived knowledge and use of clinical guidelines; and to investigate why hospital doctors think that clinical guidelines may not be used and how they think that the use of guidelines can be encouraged. Design--Postal questionnaire survey be tween October 1993 and January 1994. Setting--Hospitals within Oxford region. Subjects--409 doctors of all grades working in one of six specialties (anaesthetics, paediatrics, general surgery, general medicine, obstetrics and gynaecology and accident and emergency medicine). 47 were randomly picked as part of the pilot study, 362 were extracted from hospital staffing lists. Results--268 clinicians (66%) responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents (77%, 208) expressed welcoming attitudes towards guidelines but 51%(136) perceived the attitudes of their colleagues as being less favourable. Over three quarters of respondents claimed to use guidelines at least once a month. Most respondents learnt about guidelines from discussions with their peers (50%, 134 respondents) or senior doctors 37%, 99) or from journals (39%, 105). Reasons why guidelines may not be used included being unaware of particular guidelines (80%, 213 respondents) and the fact that guidelines had been poorly developed (64%, 171) or were impractical (49%, 132). The best ways to encourage the use of guidelines were thought to be encouragement from senior doctors (72%, 193 respondents) and peers (59%, 157) and by monitoring behaviour and providing feedback (68%, 181). Conclusion--The decision to use a guide line was based on the perceived value of each guideline and was influenced by other clinicians' behaviour. The results provide an insight into aspects of dissemination and implementation which are perceived as influential by the recipients of guidelines.  (+info)

Investigation into the attitudes of general practitioners in Staffordshire to medical audit. (77/10747)

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the attitudes of general practitioners to medical audit, and any associations between their attitudes and their personal characteristics. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire survey. SETTING --Staffordshire, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: 870 Staffordshire general practitioners. MAIN MEASURES: Agreement or disagreement and associations between the attitudes to 16 statements about audit and the doctors' personal or practice characteristics--namely, sex, number of years since qualification, practice list size, number of partners, and the practices' experience of audit. RESULTS: 601 Staffordshire general practitioners (69%) responded. There was most agreement with the statements that audit is time consuming (86%), that ongoing training and education is needed (71%), that there is a compulsion applied on doctors to audit (68%), and that extra resources for audit should be provided by the medical audit advisory group (65%). There was considerable disagreement (53% of general practitioners) with the statement that inverted question markgovernment policy to expect general practitioners to do audit will enhance the population's health. inverted question mark The median response by the 601 general practitioners was four positive responses out of 14 statements about audit (two of the 16 statements could not be graded positive or negative to audit). Women doctors generally had more positive attitudes towards audit, and so had those working with smaller mean list sizes, those in larger partnerships, and those in practices that had carried out audit for a longer time. CONCLUSIONS: There was a generally negative attitude to medical audit, but it was encouraging that those doctors with the most experience of audit obtained the most job satisfaction from it. IMPLICATIONS: More effort is needed to convince general practitioners of the value of audit. Without this, attempts to involve other members of the primary care team in multidisciplinary clinical audit are unlikely to be effective. Successful audits that are shown to be cost effective as well as leading to improvements in patient care should be publicised and replicated. A higher proportion of resources should be devoted to audit.  (+info)

Policy priorities in diabetes care: a Delphi study. (78/10747)

OBJECTIVES: To produce policy priorities for improving care of diabetes based on the findings of original research into patient and professional opinions of diabetes care in South Tyneside. To judge the feasibility of implementing these priorities as policy. DESIGN: A two round Delphi survey with a panel of 28 inverted question markexperts. inverted question mark In the first round each respondent produced a list of recommendations based on the findings of a report of patients' and professionals' opinions of diabetes care. 20 respondents produced a total of 180 recommendations, reviewed by a monitoring panel to produce a summary list of 28 recommendations. In the second round respondents rated each recommendation on two 5 point Likert scales. SETTING: Mainly Tyneside but also other parts of England. SUBJECTS: 28 healthcare professionals, including patients and patients' representatives. MAIN MEASURES: Voting by experts on how important each recommendation was to improving diabetes care service, and how likely the recommendation was to be implemented in the next five years. RESULTS: There was a high degree of consensus among respondents about recommendations considered important and likely to be implemented--namely, those concerned with improving communications between doctors in hospital and in general practice, and improving communications with patients. Respondents were more pessimistic about the prospects of implementing the recommendations than about their importance. Respondents thought that standards were important for improving care, and half would stop payments to general practice diabetic clinics that did not keep to district standards for diabetes care. For two recommendations a mismatch occurred between the importance of the recommendations and likelihood of implementation. This may reflect the practical problems of implementing recommendations. 18 of the 22 respondents thought that the study was useful in generating recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi technique is a useful method for determining priorities for diabetes care and in assessing the feasibility of implementing recommendations.  (+info)

Assessing general practitioners' care of adult patients with learning disability: case-control study. (79/10747)

OBJECTIVE: To compare general practitioners' care of adult patients with learning disability with that of control patients in the same practice. DESIGN: Case-control study of patients and controls by a structured interview study of general practitioners. SETTING: Avon. PATIENTS: 78 adult patients with learning disability and 78 age and sex matched controls--cared for by 62 general practitioners. MAIN MEASURES: Number and content of consultations and opinions of the general practitioners. RESULTS: There were more consultations for diseases of the central nervous system and of the skin among the patients than the controls (15 v 3 for central nervous system disease and 15 v 4 skin disease). There were also significantly fewer recordings of blood pressure and cervical cytology tests (34 v 51 for blood pressure and 2 v 18 for cytology). Although more patients were taking drugs affecting the central nervous system (33 v 6), more controls were taking drugs for musculoskeletal complaints (17 v 7). CONCLUSION: Although adult patients with learning disability consult with their general practitioners at equivalent rates to other patients, they get less preventive care and consult for different types of problems than do other patients. The reasons for these differences in preventive care are not clear. Carers and general practitioners should be informed of these differences to ensure that appropriate care is given.  (+info)

Bone densitometry at a district general hospital: evaluation of service by doctors and patients. (80/10747)

OBJECTIVE: To assess doctors' and patients' views about a district general hospital bone densitometry service and to examine existing practice to influence future provision. DESIGN: Three postal surveys: (a) of doctors potentially using the service, (b) of patients undergoing a bone densitometry test during a six month period, and (c) of the referring doctors of the patients undergoing the test. SETTING: Bone densitometry service at South Cleveland Hospital, Middlesbrough and two district health authorities: South Tees and Northallerton. SUBJECTS: All general practitioners (n=201) and hospital consultants in general medicine, rheumatology, obstetrics and gynaecology, orthopaedics, radio therapy and oncology, haematology, and radiology (n=61); all patients undergoing an initial bone densitometry test (n=309) during a six month period; and their referring doctors. MAIN MEASURES: Service awareness and use, knowledge of clinical indications, test results, influence of test results on patient management, satisfaction with the service and its future provision. RESULTS: The overall response rates for the three surveys were 87%, 70%, and 61%. There was a high awareness of the service among doctors and patients; 219(84%) doctors were aware and 155 of them (71%) had used it, and patients often (40%) suggested the test to their doctor. The test was used for a range of reasons including screening although the general use was consistent with current guidelines. Two hundred (65%) bone densitometry measurements were normal, 71(23%) were low normal, and 38(12%) were low. Although doctors reported that management of patients had been influenced by the test results, the algorithm for decision making was unclear. Patients and doctors were satisfied with the service and most (n=146, 68%) doctors wanted referral guidelines for the service. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high awareness of, use of, and satisfaction with the service. Patients were being referred for a range of reasons and a few of these could not be justified, many tests were normal, and clinical decision making was not always influenced by the test result. It is concluded that bone densitometry services should be provided but only for patients whose management will be influenced by test results and subject to guidelines to ensure appropriate use of the technology.  (+info)