Search the hub

The MHRA safety review examined safety data for risks of major birth defects or abnormalities and concerns with the child’s development including learning and thinking abilities for other key antiepileptic drugs. It found that a number of these epilepsy medicines may be associated with some increased risks in pregnancy. Valproate (Epilim) is already known to be seriously harmful if taken in pregnancy and should only be prescribed to a woman if a pregnancy prevention plan is in place. Importantly, two antiepileptic medicines in particular, lamotrigine (Lamictal) and levetiracetam (Keppra), have both been found to be safer than other antiepileptic drugs in pregnancy. The MHRA advises patients never to stop taking their current epilepsy medicines without first discussing it with a healthcare professional. Dr Sarah Branch, Director of MHRA’s Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines Division said: "Patient safety is our highest priority, and we are committed to making sure women are aware of the risks of taking certain epilepsy medicines during pregnancy, particularly valproate." "We have shared this important review with doctor and nurses so they can use it to inform discussions with their patients." "If a woman is planning to become pregnant, and is taking a medicine for epilepsy, even if this is some time in the future, it is very important that she should discuss with a healthcare professional the right treatment for her, taking into account the results of this review." "It is vitally important that women don’t ever stop taking any epilepsy medicine without discussing it first with a healthcare professional."

CAHPS surveys CAHPS surveys ask patients to report on their experiences with a range of health care services at multiple levels of the delivery system. Some CAHPS surveys ask about patients' experiences with providers, such as medical, groups, practice sites, and surgical centers, or with care for specific health conditions. Other surveys ask enrollees about their experiences with health plans and related programs. Finally, several surveys ask about experiences with care delivered in facilities, including hospitals, dialysis centers, and nursing homes. CAHPS databases For each survey, you can download formatted survey instruments, guidance for administering them, and information on analysing and using the results. Information in the guidance documents is based on the survey developers' extensive research into best practices in survey design and administration as well as analyses of data collected during the field testing of each instrument. AHRQ does not require the use of any surveys or the use of a specific methodology for sampling or survey administration. CAHPS Ambulatory Care Improvement Guide The CAHPS Ambulatory Care Improvement Guide is a comprehensive resource for health plans, medical groups, and other providers seeking to improve their performance in the domains of patient experience measured by CAHPS surveys of ambulatory care. Use this guide to help your organization: Cultivate an environment that encourages and sustains improvements in patient-centered care. Analyze the results of CAHPS surveys and other forms of patient feedback to identify strengths and weaknesses. Develop strategies for improving performance.

The purpose of this review from Hutchinson et al. was to systematically examine published and grey research reports in order to assess the state of the science regarding the validity and reliability of the RAI-MDS 2.0 Quality Indicators (QIs). The authors found that evidence for the reliability and validity of the RAI-MDS QIs remains inconclusive. The QIs provide a useful tool for quality monitoring and to inform quality improvement programs and initiatives. However, caution should be exercised when interpreting the QI results and other sources of evidence of the quality of care processes should be considered in conjunction with QI results.

In the late eighties, I attended a presentation on the future of the UK Medtech sector presented on behalf of the government by KPMG. The main message being the government’s desire for the industry to focus on research and development whilst transferring manufacturing to China! What relevance does this have to patient safety? Fast forward some twenty years and I am presenting the case for adoption of one of our most successful unique patented patient safety products (successful global use at this point around the 5 million patient level) to one of the largest NHS trusts. The difficulties faced by industry The trust we presented to operates a clear policy that industry should not even provide literature on products to any clinician unless procurement permission is given. We complied with this policy and were invited in to present after an anaesthetist had highlighted that the trust had experienced patient injury from the current standard practice of using rolls of tape to secure patients' eyes during anaesthesia to protect from hazards and prevent the eyes from drying out causing potentially serious harm. Our product literature carries an endorsement from the Association of Perioperative Practice who clearly state that the practice of using tape to address these issues is “not recommended and that Eyepads fit for purpose should be used”. The meeting is attended by a man from procurement and a Sister from the trust with many years of experience in her role. I present the product case and pass samples to the Sister. Within a minute of handling the product she dismisses the product as “expensive nonsense”! The man from procurement proclaims the session over and we part company. The anaesthetist that initiated the meeting was not present and was not allowed to take her desire to try our solution any further. This story is reflective of not only our experience but typical of the path we and other Medtech companies encounter in attempting to introduce new innovative patented solutions to the NHS UK companies. The drive towards ever cheaper manufacturing adoption by the NHS is led by NHS supply chain, dominating the tendering market for products with multiple manufacturing sources. The NHS is now globally recognised as a procurement-driven market, focussed on reducing costs through purchasing and negotiating lower pricing. An organisation that issues “zero inflation pricing increase” policies. This can be very effective and is certainly a major driving factor in the success of the multitude of Chinese manufacturing companies supplying the NHS. A market that has produced a multitude of failed schemes for the adoption of new technologies in favour of sourcing ever cheaper, often poor quality products. But we did not jump on that bandwagon and instead chose to continue working with the best patented technological solutions emerging. We recently had the pleasure of working with Helen Hughes and Patient Safety Learning on a webinar presenting one such product. We introduced this product over a year ago and immediately engaged with the latest NHS Accelerated Access Collaborative innovation adoption scheme. In the webinar I described how this and all of our other efforts had failed to make any serious impact other than producing great results with a small band of community health nurses. Then COVID-19 strikes and almost overnight procurement is bypassed. There is a priority in addressing shortages of products perceived as vital in maintaining care levels in the impending increased demand due to COVID-19. This leads to the successful sale of several hundred of our units. However, when the government moves to address the issue through large scale purchase of the product, our solution is dismissed and offered no part of the contracts awarded in a process that was uncannily like the experience described above. A culture of cost cutting and fear Management of the NHS is an enormous undertaking. However, I would suggest that many years of focus on cost cutting has delivered a culture of fear and apathy toward the adoption of the amazing new technologies that can transform care. The plethora of schemes for innovation adoption that we have engaged with over the years have failed, often at the outset, simply due to inadequate funding and planning. During this period industry has also had to bear the substantial increased costs of product and staff regulatory changes. When I engage with some of these schemes, I cannot understand why there are so many companies in the mix pitching products and services that have nothing to do with healthcare, but offer instead procurement or management “more efficient management” tools! Some trusts appear to be more concerned with this aspect than the actual delivery of healthcare. One trust insists that we supply our products through a third-party purchase company because the product they buy is not listed on NHS supply chain. They have now ceased to order after the third-party supplier entered administration, owing us several thousand pounds! In November we will launch a new patented product with patient safety benefits, invented by two operating department practitioners (OPDs) in Liverpool. We will manufacture the product in the UK and manage global marketing from the UK. However, we are currently focused on marketing the product overseas; engaging with NHS procurement is not a priority. I know other companies have that same view. It’s recognised that efficient procurement is an important element of NHS management, largely developed from the political direction in the Eighties on cheaper globalised manufacturing policies. Unfortunately, whilst to some degree it has been very successful in cutting costs, patient and staff safety has on occasion been compromised. There is now a culture of cost cutting with procurement completely focused on this. Call for action NHS adoption of new beneficial technologies is woefully inadequate and remains largely under the control of procurement services often disinterested in it and unqualified to manage it. For patient and staff safety to benefit, I would like to see: Simplified fast-tracked product assessment procedures managed by appropriately qualified staff. The removal of products and services designed for healthcare management from the assessment of products directly involved in improving healthcare outcomes. Our current structures are simply not fit for this purpose. Stewart Munro is Managing Director of Pentland Medical Ltd.

The outcome is that the RCP released a statement on its website relating to revised guidance on the use of early warning scores for COVID-19 inpatients. The RCP suggest that all staff should be aware that any increase in oxygen requirements should be an indicator of clinical deterioration as the early warning score might not significantly increase.

The Authors, conclude that whilst healthcare has much to learn from aviation in certain key domains, the transfer of lessons from aviation to healthcare needs to be nuanced, with the specific characteristics and needs of healthcare borne in mind. On the basis of this review, it is recommended that healthcare should emulate aviation in its resourcing of staff who specialise in human factors and related psychological aspects of patient safety and staff well-being. Professional and post-qualification staff training could specifically include Cognitive Bias Avoidance Training, as this appears to play a key part in many errors relating to patient safety and staff well-being.

The aims of this study were to: eradicate accidental administration of medication into the arterial line and improve arterial line safety estimate the prevalence of wrong route arterial line drug errors conduct primary research implement the NIC in the East of England assess cost effectiveness and the uptake of the NIC in the East of England understand the reasons for barriers to adoption.

Key highlights from the paper Accountability relationships, as both retrospective and prospective, support just culture. Lines are fluid in accountability relationships, forcing operators to adapt to changing goals. Viewing accountability lines as rigid, increases risk and creates double-binds for operators. Clinging to retrospective accountability reinforces blaming/shaming operators for errors.

The report shows that mortality at 30 days is twice as high in IHF compared to non-IHF. Analysis of the 2018 NHFD data indicates that there is a delay in time to surgery, as well as worse outcomes relating to post-operative mobility, delirium and length of stay. The report also found high participation levels with full participation from Welsh health boards, very high participation from English acute trusts, and high engagement from English community trusts. An impressive proportion of English mental health trusts registered, despite no previous involvement with NAIF. The submission of cases was also excellent, with almost total completion of data collection. You can download the report here. Please note you will be prompted to register your details so you can receive updates. You may skip the registration process if you prefer.