2 research outputs found
AVOIDable medical errors in invasive procedures : facts on the ground – An NHS staff survey
No full textBACKGROUND: Never Events represent a serious problem with a high burden on healthcare providers’ facilities. Despite introducing various safety checklists and precautions, many Never Events are reported yearly. OBJECTIVE: This survey aims to assess awareness and compliance with the safety standards and obtain recommendations from the National Health Service (NHS) staff on preventative measures. METHODS: An online survey of 45 questions has been conducted directed at NHS staff involved in invasive procedures. The questions were designed to assess the level of awareness, training and education delivered to the staff on patient safety. Moreover, we designed a set of focused questions to assess compliance with the National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSIPs) guidance. Open questions were added to encourage the staff to give practical recommendations on tackling and preventing these incidents. Invitations were sent through social media, and the survey was kept live from 20/11/2021 to 23/04/2022. RESULTS: Out of 700 invitations sent, 75 completed the survey (10.7%). 96% and 94.67% were familiar with the terms Never Events and near-miss, respectively. However, 52% and 36.49% were aware of National and Local Safety Standards for Invasive procedures (NatSSIPs-LocSSIPs), respectively. 28 (37.33%) had training on preventing medical errors. 48 (64%) believe that training on safety checklists should be delivered during undergraduate education. Fourteen (18.67%) had experiences when the checklists failed to prevent medical errors. 53 (70.67%) have seen the operating list or the consent forms containing abbreviations. 33 (44.00%) have a failed counting reconciliation algorithm. NHS staff emphasised the importance of multi-level checks, utilisation of specific checklists, patient involvement in the safety checks, adequate staffing, avoidance of staff change in the middle of a procedure and list order, and investment in training and education on patient safety. CONCLUSION: This survey showed a low awareness of some of the principal patient safety aspects and poor compliance with NatSSIPs recommendations. Checklists fail on some occasions to prevent medical errors. Process redesign creating a safe environment, and enhancing a safety culture could be the key. The study presented the recommendations of the staff on preventative measures
Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries
No full textAbstract
Background
Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres.
Methods
This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries.
Results
In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia.
Conclusion
This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries
