Search the hub
Showing results for tags 'Delegation'.
-
Content Article
Patient safety in ophthalmology depends on the reliability of diagnostic information that informs clinical decisions. Within independent providers delivering NHS-contracted care, ophthalmic technicians undertake a wide range of physiological and psychophysical assessments, from advanced imagining and functional testing to preoperative measurements that shape condition management and surgical planning. This article explores diagnostics as an often unseen safety checkpoint. It reflects on how structured verification processes, clear escalation pathways and defined accountability within diagnostic teams strengthen system reliability. Viewing diagnostics through a patient safety lens highlights how safe care is sustained through multidisciplinary collaboration and robust system design rather than individual vigilance alone. The NHS increasingly delivers care through a mixed model in which independent providers undertake NHS-funded surgical pathways. This model can increase capacity and reduce waiting times. However, patient safety does not transfer automatically with contracts. It depends on robust systems, clear standards and well-prepared people. In ophthalmology, safety begins long before the surgeon enters the operating theatre. It begins in diagnostics with ophthalmic technicians (predominantly). Preoperative imaging, biometry, visual field testing and other screening inform surgical planning and intraocular lens power selection. National guidance from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists emphasises the importance of accurate biometry and appropriate preoperative assessment in reducing refractive surprise and avoidable harm.[1] When diagnostic governance is strong, risk is mitigated early in the pathway. When it is inconsistent, vulnerabilities may remain undetected. Diagnostic reliability as a safety principle Patient safety literature consistently demonstrates that harm in healthcare often arises not from single catastrophic failures but from accumulations of small system weaknesses.[2] In high volume cataract and glaucoma services, diagnostic processes operate under significant throughput pressure. In that environment, the reliability of measurement systems matters. Examples may include: Failure to recognise poor fixation during biometry. Acceptance of inconsistent keratometry readings without repeat measurement. Inadequate review of visual field reliability indices. Limited escalation of ambiguous imaging findings. Individually these may appear minor. Collectively they influence surgical accuracy and long term outcomes. This is not solely an ophthalmic technician issue. It is a system reliability issue. The role of ophthalmic technicians within the safety system Ophthalmic technicians working in both NHS trusts and independent providers frequently undertake (this is not an exhaustive list): Optical coherence tomography acquisition. Biometry measurement. Visual field testing. Corneal topography. Ultrasonography. Fundus photography. Specular microscopy. Data preparation for clinical decision making. The General Medical Council and NHS England both emphasise that safe delegation requires appropriate training, supervision and clarity of accountability.[3] Where ophthalmic technicians are appropriately trained and supported, structured approaches such as second checker systems, defined escalation thresholds and documented quality standards can strengthen safety by reducing single point failure risk. These systems align with wider patient safety principles embedded within the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF), which emphasises learning, system design and proactive risk reduction rather than individual blame.[4] Independent provider pathways and shared standards Independent providers delivering NHS care are subject to the same Care Quality Commission expectations regarding safety, governance and quality assurance.[5] Patients rightly expect consistent standards regardless of setting. Diagnostic governance in this context should include: Clear standard operating procedures aligned with national guidance. Documented competency frameworks. Regular audit of refractive outcomes and measurement consistency. Structured escalation pathways. Ongoing professional development. These measures support both clinicians and ophthalmic technicians. They strengthen the entire pathway. Capability before expectation Across healthcare there has been expansion of non-medical roles to address workforce pressures. The Health and Social Care Committee has highlighted that role expansion must be matched with training, supervision and system design to protect patient safety.[6] In ophthalmology, ophthalmic technician-led diagnostic services can improve efficiency and access. However, safe expansion depends on: Defined scope of practice. Clear supervision structures. Time for skill consolidation. Access to continuing professional development. Inclusion in governance discussions. When expectation outpaces preparation, risk increases. When preparation is prioritised, safety improves. Prevented harm is rarely visible A repeated scan due to inconsistent signal. A paused surgical listing due to anomalous measurements. An escalated concern about unreliable visual field data. These actions do not generate incident reports because harm was prevented. Safety science reminds us that high-reliability systems pay attention not only to adverse events but to near misses and everyday adjustments that prevent error.[7] Ophthalmic technicians often contribute to this layer of safety. Recognising that contribution is not about professional status. It is about understanding how the pathway functions as a whole. A shared responsibility This is not an argument that ophthalmic technicians alone safeguard patients. Surgeons, optometrists, nurses, managers and other non-clinical staff all contribute to safe care. Rather, it is an invitation to ensure that diagnostic work is fully integrated into patient safety conversations. Questions worth reflecting on include: How is diagnostic quality measured within surgical pathways? Are escalation thresholds clearly defined and psychologically safe to use? Is learning captured from preoperative discrepancies? Are diagnostic staff included in incident learning discussions? In NHS-contracted independent care, as in all healthcare settings, patient safety depends on system design, team functioning and reliable processes. Diagnostics is the first safety checkpoint in ophthalmic surgery. The people delivering it should be visible within the safety framework, not peripheral to it. References 1. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists, UK Ophthalmology Alliance. Quality Standard. Correct IOL implantation in cataract surgery. March 2018. 2. Reason J. Human Error, 1990; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 3. General Medical Council: Delegation and referral. Last accessed 2 March 2026. 4. NHS England. Patient Safety Incident Response Framework. Last accessed 2 March 2026. 5. Care Quality Commission. The fundamental standards of care. 23 December 2025. 6. House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee. Workforce burnout and resilience in the NHS and social care. Second Report of Session 2021-22. 8 June 2021. 7. Vanderhaegen F. Erik Hollnagel: Safety-I and Safety-II, the past and future of safety management. Cognition Technology and Work 17(3):461-464.- Posted
-
- Private sector
- Screening
- (and 6 more)
-
Content Article
What it feels like working with unsafe staffing
Anonymous posted an article in Florence in the Machine
This blog has been written by a healthcare worker and demonstrates the reality of what it is like caring for patients and families while being chronically low on staff. They describe the impact this has on staff morale and the impact it has on patients, patients family members and the relationship between staff and patients. So, what does it feel like working in chronically depleted staffing levels? "We are down three nurses today" – this is what I usually hear when I turn up for a shift. It has become the norm. We work below our template, usually daily, so much so that when we are fully staffed, we are expected to work on other wards that are ‘three nurses down’. Not an uncommon occurrence to hear at handover on a busy 50-bedded medical ward. No one seems to bat an eyelid; you may see people sink into their seat, roll their eyes or sigh, but this is work as usual. ‘Three nurses down’ has been the norm for months here, staff here have adapted to taking up the slack. Instead of taking a bay of six patients, the side rooms are added on making the ratio 1:9 or sometimes 1:10, especially at night. This splitting up the workload has become common practice on many wards. "That was a good shift" – no one died when they were not supposed to, I gave the medications, I documented care that we gave, I filled out all the paperwork that I am supposed to, I completed the safety checklists. Sounds a good shift? Thinking of Erik Hollnagel’s ‘work as done, work as imagined’ (Wears, Hollnagel & Braithwaite, 2015) – this shift on paper looks as if it was a ‘good shift’ but in fact: Medications were given late; some were not given at all as the pharmacy order went out late because we had a patient that fell. Care that was given was documented – most of the personal care is undertaken by the healthcare assistants (HCA) now and verbally handed over during the day – bowel movements, mobility, hygiene, mouth care, nutrition and hydration. As a nurse, I should be involved in these important aspects of my patients’ care, but I am on the phone sorting out Bed 3’s discharge home, calling the bank office to cover sickness, attending to a complaint by a relative. It’s being attended to by the HCA – so it's sorted? I have documented, probably over documented which has made me late home. I’m fearful of being reprimanded for the fall my patient had earlier on. This will be investigated and they will find out using my documentation what happened. The safety checklists have been completed for all my patients; comfort rounds, mouth care, falls proforma, bed rails assessment, nutritional score, cannular care plan, catheter care plan, delirium score, swallow test, capacity test, pre op assessments, pre op checklists, safe ward round checklist, NEWS charting, fluid balance charting and stool charting… the list is endless. Management have made things easier with the checklist ‘if it’s not written down it didn’t happen’ so now we can ‘tick’ against the check list rather than writing copious notes. However, I cut corners to enable me to complete all my tasks, some ticks are just ‘ticks’ when no work has been completed. No one would know this shift would they? What looks as if it has been a ‘good shift’ for the nurse, has often been the opposite for the patients and their family. There is a large body of research showing that low nurse staffing levels are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, notably mortality (Griffiths et al, 2018; Recio-Saucedo et al, 2018). What is the safest level of staff to care for patients? Safe staffing levels have been a long-standing mission of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC)/Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in recent years. In the UK at present, nurse staffing levels are set locally by individual health providers. The Department of Health and professional organisations such as the RCN have recommended staffing levels for some care settings but there is currently no compliance regime or compulsion for providers to follow these when planning services (Royal College of Nursing 2019). I was surprised to find that there are no current guidelines on safe staffing within our healthcare system. It left me wondering… is patient safety a priority within our healthcare system? It seems not. While the debate and fight continues for safe staffing levels, healthcare staff continue to nurse patients without knowing what is and isn’t safe. Not only are the patients at risk and the quality of care given, but the registration of that nurse is also at risk. What impact does low staffing have on patients and families? ‘What matters to them’ does not get addressed. I shall never forget the time a relative asked me to get a fresh sheet for their elderly mother as there was a small spillage of soup on it. I said yes, but soon forgot. In the throes of medication and ward rounds, being called to the phone for various reasons, answering call buzzers, writing my documentation, making sure Doris doesn't climb out of bed again, escorting patients to and from the CT scanner, transferring patients to other wards – I forgot. My elderly patients’ daughter was annoyed, I remember she kept asking and I kept saying "in a minute", this made matters worse. She got annoyed, so that I ended up avoiding her altogether. How long does it take to give her the sheet? Five minutes tops, so why not get the sheet? MY priority was the tasks for the whole ward, tasks that are measured and audited on how well the ward performs by the Trust; filling out the observations correctly, adhering to the escalation policy, completing the 20 page safety booklet, completing the admission paperwork, ensuring everyone had their medication on time, making sure no one fell – changing a sheet with a small spot of soup on it was not on my priority list. It was a priority for my patients’ family. My patient was elderly, frail and probably wouldn’t get out of hospital alive this time. Her daughter was the only family she had left. It’s no wonder families feel that they are not listened to, are invisible, are getting in the way and not valued. These feelings do not encourage a healthy relationship between patients/families and healthcare workers. Studies have shown that involving patients and families in care is vital to ensure patient safety. Patients and their relatives have the greatest knowledge of patients and can often pick up subtle signs physiological deterioration before this is identified by staff or monitoring systems (O’dell et al, 2011). If our relationship is strained, how can we, as nurses, advocate for the safety of our patients? So, what impact does low staffing have on the staff member? "Fully staffed today!" The mood lifts at handover. People are sat up, smiling, quiet excitable chatter is heard. This uplifting sentence is quickly followed by either: "Let’s keep this quiet" or "someone will be moved" or "someone will have to move to XX ward as they are down three nurses". Morale is higher when wards are fully staffed. The mood is different. There are people to help with patient care, staff can take their breaks at reasonable times, staff may be able to get home on time and there is emotional support given by staff to other staff – a camaraderie. The feeling does not last long. Another department is ‘three nurses down’. Someone must move to cover the shortfall. No one wants to go When you get moved, you often get given the ‘heavy’ or ‘confused’ patients. Not only that, you are working with a different team with different dynamics – you are an outsider. This makes speaking up difficult, asking for help difficult, everything is difficult: the ward layout, where equipment is stored, where to find documentation, drugs are laid out differently in the cupboard, the clinical room layout is not the same. The risk of you getting something wrong has increased; this is a human factors nightmare, the perfect storm. I am in fear of losing my PIN (NMC registration) at times. At some point I am going to make a mistake. I can’t do the job I have been trained to do safely. The processes that have been designed to keep me and my patients safe are not robust. If anything, it is to protect the safety and reputation of the Trust, that’s what it feels like. Being fully staffed is a rarity. Being moved to a different department happens, on some wards more than others. Staff dread coming to work for threat of being moved into a different specialty. Just because you trained to work on a respiratory, doesn’t mean you can now work on a gynae ward. We are not robots you can move from one place to another. I can see that moving staff is the best option to ensure efficiency; but at what cost? Another problem in being chronically short staffed is that it becomes the norm. We have been ‘coping’ with three nurses down for so long, that ‘management’ look at our template. Is the template correct, we could save money here? If we had written guidance on safe staffing levels, we still have the problem of recruitment and retention of staff; there are not enough of us to go around. Thoughts please... Does this resonate with you? Has anyone felt that they feel ‘unsafe’ giving care? What power do we have as a group to address this issue of safe staffing levels? References 1. Wears RL, Hollnagel E, Braithwaite J, eds. The Resilience of Everyday Clinical Work. 2015. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. 2. Griffiths P et al. The association between nurse staffing and omissions in nursing care: a systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2018: 74 (7): 1474-1487. 3. Recio-Saucedo A et al. What impact does nursing care left undone have on patient outcomes? Review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2018; 27(11-12): 2248-2259. 4. O’dell M et al. Call 4 Concern: patient and relative activated critical care outreach. British Journal of Nursing 2001; 19 (22): 1390-1395.- Posted
- 2 comments
-
- Safe staffing
- Nurse
- (and 15 more)
-
Content Article
See how incivility affects all of us in the NHS and how that can impact patient safety. Join the staff of Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust on their journey as they reflect on the real-life effects of both incivility and active kindness. This video was devised, filmed and produced by the Elena Power Simulation Centre.- Posted
-
1
-
- Bullying
- Communication
- (and 7 more)
-
Content Article
JAMA: Time of day and the decision to prescribe antibiotics (December 2014)
Claire Cox posted an article in Culture
This research paper discusses the problem of decision fatigue and how it can impact patient safety. The authors hypothesised that decision fatigue, if present, would increase clinicians’ likelihood of prescribing antibiotics for patients presenting with acute respiratory infections as clinic sessions wore on.- Posted
-
- Doctor
- Pharmacist
- (and 7 more)
-
Content Article
Designed and tested by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's (IHI) world-renowned safety experts, this toolkit includes documents on improving teamwork and communication, tools to help you understand the underlying issues that can cause errors, and valuable guidance about how to create and maintain reliable systems. Each of the nine tools includes a short description, instructions, an example and a blank template. What will I learn? Within the toolkit you will find: The SBAR (Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation) technique, which provides a framework for communication between members of the health care team about a patient's condition. Action Hierarchy, a component of RCA2 that will assist teams in identifying which actions will have the strongest effect for successful and sustained system improvement. A daily huddle agenda, which gives teams a way to proactively manage quality and safety. Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA): also used in Lean management and Six Sigma, FMEA is a systematic, proactive method for identifying potential risks and their impact.- Posted
-
- Communication problems
- Decision making
- (and 7 more)
-
Content Article
Empowering doctors to speak up when they have concerns is essential to making our NHS safer, say Peter Brennan and Mike Davidson in this BMJ article. They discuss how healthcare can learn a lot from aviation and other high risk organisations, particularly in how they’ve embraced and applied human factors, the importance of looking after ourselves at work, and reducing hierarchy.- Posted
-
- Doctor
- Accountability
- (and 7 more)
-
Community Post
Coexistence of Accreditation and Regulation in Healthcare
Dr Akhil Sangal posted a topic in Innovation programmes in health and care
- Board member
- Clinical director
- (and 10 more)
- Posted
-
- Board member
- Clinical director
- (and 10 more)