Centre for Patient Safety and Service Quality, Imperial College London, Faculty of Medicine, Room 508 Medical School Building, St Mary's Campus, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Jun;21(6):466-72. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000442. Epub 2012 Apr 11.
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.
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.
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.
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.
众所周知,许多医疗保健系统的可靠性较差;然而,这个问题的规模和普遍性及其影响尚未在英国得到系统的确定。作者研究了四个临床系统:外科门诊的临床信息、住院患者的处方、手术室的设备和外周静脉置管的插入。目的是描述这四个系统在英国医院样本中的可靠性的性质、程度和变异性,并探讨可靠性差的原因。
有 7 家英国医院组织参与;每个系统都在其中 3 个系统中进行了研究。作者获得了系统预期的输出,以代表整个系统的可靠性。例如,对于临床信息,100%的可靠性定义为在患者就诊期间需要时,所有患者都能获得一份已达成的临床信息清单。使用关键信息提供者的半结构化访谈探索系统因素。确定了贯穿整个系统的共同主题。
所研究系统的整体可靠性在 81%至 87%之间,一些系统在组织之间存在显著差异:门诊临床信息为 73%至 96%;住院患者处方为 82-88%;手术室设备可用性为 63-88%;外周静脉置管设备可用性为 80-88%。每五个可靠性故障中有一个与患者安全受到威胁有关。导致可靠性差的常见因素包括缺乏反馈、缺乏标准化以及信息在工作时间之外无法获取等问题。
在所研究的四个系统中,报告的可靠性较低,每个系统都有一些共同的因素。然而,这掩盖了一些组织在某些流程方面的显著差异,表明一些组织已经成功地创建了更可靠的系统。流程的标准化预计会带来重大收益。