Engaging, empowering and educating junior doctors in quality improvement (QI) to improve patient safety: a trust-wide junior doctor forum

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. s39-s39
Author(s):  
Sanjay Kumar ◽  
Anna Winfield ◽  
Robert Jackson ◽  
Gillian Pearce ◽  
Sarah Fiori ◽  
...  
2018 ◽  
Vol 94 (1113) ◽  
pp. 374-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnes Ayton ◽  
Ali Ibrahim

BackgroundEating disorders affect 1%–4% of the population and they are associated with an increased rate of mortality and multimorbidity. Following the avoidable deaths of three people the parliamentary ombudsman called for a review of training for all junior doctors to improve patient safety.ObjectiveTo review the teaching and assessment relating to eating disorders at all levels of medical training in the UK.MethodWe surveyed all the UK medical schools about their curricula, teaching and examinations related to eating disorders in 2017. Furthermore, we reviewed curricula and requirements for annual progression (Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP)) for all relevant postgraduate training programmes, including foundation training, general practice and 33 specialties.Main outcome measuresInclusion of eating disorders in curricula, time dedicated to teaching, assessment methods and ARCP requirements.ResultsThe medical school response rate was 93%. The total number of hours spent on eating disorder teaching in medical schools is <2 hours. Postgraduate training adds little more, with the exception of child and adolescent psychiatry. The majority of doctors are never assessed on their knowledge of eating disorders during their entire training, and only a few medical students and trainees have the opportunity to choose a specialist placement to develop their clinical skills.ConclusionsEating disorder teaching is minimal during the 10–16 years of undergraduate and postgraduate medical training in the UK. Given the risk of mortality and multimorbidity associated with these disorders, this needs to be urgently reviewed to improve patient safety.


Author(s):  
Julia Metzner ◽  
Karen B. Domino

To improve the safety of patients undergoing procedures in remote locations, practitioners should be familiar with rigorous continuous quality improvement systems, national and regulatory patient safety efforts, as well as complications related to anesthesia/sedation in out of the operating room (OOOR) settings. This chapter discusses severe outcomes and mechanisms of injury in OOOR locations, national patient safety and regulatory efforts that may be adapted to the OOOR setting, and quality improvement efforts essential to track outcomes and improve patient safety. Patient safety can be improved by adherence to respiratory monitoring (e.g., pulse oximetry and capnography), sedation standards/guidelines and national patient safety and regulatory efforts, and development of vigorous quality improvement systems to measure outcomes and make changes.


Author(s):  
Julia Metzner ◽  
Karen B. Domino

Providing anesthesia care in areas outside the operating room (OOOR) has numerous challenges, including an unfamiliar environment; inadequate anesthesia support; deficient resources; cramped, dark, small rooms; and variability of monitoring modalities. In addition, sicker patients are undergoing more complex procedures in areas that may be physically located far from the OR environment. To improve safety of patients undergoing procedures in remote locations, practitioners need to be familiar with development of rigorous continuous quality improvement systems, national and regulatory patient safety efforts, as well as complications related to anesthesia/sedation in OOOR settings. This chapter will identify severe outcomes and mechanisms of injury in these remote locations, national patient safety and regulatory efforts that may be adapted to the OOOR setting, and quality improvement efforts essential to track outcomes and improve patient safety.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 130 (2) ◽  
pp. e423-e431 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. E. Muething ◽  
A. Goudie ◽  
P. J. Schoettker ◽  
L. F. Donnelly ◽  
M. A. Goodfriend ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e001086
Author(s):  
Claire Cushley ◽  
Tom Knight ◽  
Helen Murray ◽  
Lawrence Kidd

Background and problemThe WHO Surgical Safety Checklist has been shown to improve patient safety as well as improving teamwork and communication in theatres. In 2009, it was made a mandatory requirement for all NHS hospitals in England and Wales. The WHO checklist is intended to be adapted to suit local settings and was modified for use in Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In 2018, it was decided to review the use of the adapted WHO checklist and determine whether improvements in compliance and engagement could be achieved.AimThe aim was to achieve 90% compliance and engagement with the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist by April 2019.MethodsIn April 2018, a prospective observational audit and online survey took place. The results showed compliance for the ‘Sign In’ section of the checklist was 55% and for the ‘Time Out’ section was 91%. Engagement by the entire theatre team was measured at 58%. It was proposed to move from a paper checklist to a wall-mounted checklist, to review and refine the items in the checklist and to change the timing of ‘Time Out’ to ensure it was done immediately prior to knife-to-skin.ResultsFollowing its introduction in September 2018, the new wall-mounted checklist was reaudited. Compliance improved to 91% for ‘Sign In’ and to 94% for ‘Time Out’. Engagement by the entire theatre team was achieved 100% of the time. Feedback was collected, adjustments made and the new checklist was rolled out in stages across all theatres. A reaudit in December 2018 showed compliance improved further, to 99% with ‘Sign In’ and to 100% with ‘Time Out’. Engagement was maintained at 100%.ConclusionsThe aim of the project was met and exceeded. Since April 2019, the new checklist is being used across all theatres in the Trust.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document