Designing for Patient Safety: A Review of the Effectiveness of Design in the UK Health Service

Author(s):  
P. John Clarkson ◽  
James Ward ◽  
Peter Buckle ◽  
Dave Stubbs ◽  
Roger Coleman
Keyword(s):  
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e039752
Author(s):  
Rebecca L Morris ◽  
Kay Gallacher ◽  
Mark Hann ◽  
Carly Rolfe ◽  
Nicola Small ◽  
...  

IntroductionPatients and carers should be active partners in patient safety with healthcare professionals and be empowered to use personalised approaches to identify safety concerns and work together to prevent them. This protocol paper details a study to examine the feasibility of a multicomponent intervention to involve patients and/or carers in patient safety in primary care in the UK.Methods and analysisThis is a two-phase, non-randomised feasibility mixed methods pragmatic study of a patient safety guide for primary care (PSG-PC). 8 general practices will recruit 120 patient and/or carer participants. All patient and/or carer participants will receive the PSG-PC. It will examine the feasibility and acceptability of the PSG-PC in primary care settings in patients aged 18 years or older who attend appointments at general practice with health professionals four or more times per year as either patients or carers. It will identify secondary outcomes for improving patient safety, health status and patient empowerment, and reducing health service utilisation over 6 months between baseline and 6-month follow-ups. The findings will inform whether a main effectiveness trial is feasible and, if so, how it should be designed, and how many patients and practices will be needed. The study will be undertaken between January 2020 and September 2021.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the National Health Service London-West London and Gene Therapy Advisory Committee Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/LO/1289). Research findings will be disseminated with participating general practices and shared in a range of different ways to engage different audiences, including presenting at international and national conferences, publishing in open-access, peer-reviewed journals and facilitating dissemination workshops within local communities with patients, carers and healthcare professionals.Trial registration numberISRCTN90222092.


2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. J. Clarkson ◽  
P. Buckle ◽  
R. Coleman ◽  
D. Stubbs ◽  
J. Ward ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Collister ◽  
Manroop Bains ◽  
Rachel Jackson ◽  
Emily Clarke ◽  
Raj Patel

2020 ◽  
Vol 237 (12) ◽  
pp. 1400-1408
Author(s):  
Heinrich Heimann ◽  
Deborah Broadbent ◽  
Robert Cheeseman

AbstractThe customary doctor and patient interactions are currently undergoing significant changes through technological advances in imaging and data processing and the need for reducing person-to person contacts during the COVID-19 crisis. There is a trend away from face-to-face examinations to virtual assessments and decision making. Ophthalmology is particularly amenable to such changes, as a high proportion of clinical decisions are based on routine tests and imaging results, which can be assessed remotely. The uptake of digital ophthalmology varies significantly between countries. Due to financial constraints within the National Health Service, specialized ophthalmology units in the UK have been early adopters of digital technology. For more than a decade, patients have been managed remotely in the diabetic retinopathy screening service and virtual glaucoma clinics. We describe the day-to-day running of such services and the doctor and patient experiences with digital ophthalmology in daily practice.


2015 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARK EXWORTHY ◽  
PAULA HYDE ◽  
PAMELA MCDONALD-KUHNE

AbstractWe elaborate Le Grand's thesis of ‘knights and knaves’ in terms of clinical excellence awards (CEAs), the ‘financial bonuses’ which are paid to over half of all English hospital specialists and which can be as much as £75,000 (€92,000) per year in addition to an NHS (National Health Service) salary. Knights are ‘individuals who are motivated to help others for no private reward’ while knaves are ‘self-interested individuals who are motivated to help others only if by doing so they will serve their private interests.’ Doctors (individually and collectively) exhibit both traits but the work of explanation of the inter-relationship between them has remained neglected. Through a textual analysis of written responses to a recent review of CEAs, we examine the ‘knightly’ and ‘knavish’ arguments used by medical professional stakeholders in defending these CEAs. While doctors promote their knightly claims, they are also knavish in shaping the preferences of, and options for, policy-makers. Policy-makers continue to support CEAs but have introduced revised criteria for CEAs, putting pressure on the medical profession to accept reforms. CEAs illustrate the enduring and flexible power of the medical profession in the UK in colonising reforms to their pay, and also the subtle inter-relationship between knights and knaves in health policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document