Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Risk management'.


More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Start to type the tag you want to use, then select from the list.

  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • All
    • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Culture
    • Improving patient safety
    • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Leadership for patient safety
    • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Patient engagement
    • Patient safety in health and care
    • Patient Safety Learning
    • Professionalising patient safety
    • Research, data and insight
    • Miscellaneous

Categories

  • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Commissioning and funding patient safety
    • Digital health and care service provision
    • Health records and plans
    • Innovation programmes in health and care
  • Culture
    • Bullying and fear
    • Good practice
    • Safety culture programmes
    • Second victim
    • Speak Up Guardians
    • Whistle blowing
  • Improving patient safety
    • Design for safety
    • Disasters averted/near misses
    • Equipment and facilities
    • Human factors (improving human performance in care delivery)
    • Improving systems of care
    • Implementation of improvements
    • Safety stories
    • Stories from the front line
    • Workforce and resources
  • Investigations, risk management and legal issues
    • Investigations and complaints
    • Risk management and legal issues
  • Leadership for patient safety
  • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
  • Patient engagement
  • Patient safety in health and care
  • Patient Safety Learning
  • Professionalising patient safety
  • Research, data and insight
  • Miscellaneous

News

  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start
    End

Last updated

  • Start
    End

Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


First name


Last name


Country


About me


Organisation


Role

Found 94 results
  1. News Article
    The Streatham terrorist attack has again highlighted one of the most difficult decisions the emergency services face – deciding when it is safe to treat wounded people. In the aftermath of the stabbings by Sudesh Amman, a passer-by who helped a man lying on the pavement bleeding claimed ambulance crews took 30 minutes to arrive. The London Ambulance Service (LAS) said the first medics arrived in four minutes, but waited at the assigned rendezvous point until the Metropolitan police confirmed it was safe to move in. Last summer, the inquest into the London Bridge attack heard it took three hours for paramedics to reach some of the wounded. Prompt treatment might have saved the life of French chef Sebastian Belanger, who received CPR from members of the public and police officers for half an hour. A LAS debriefing revealed paramedics’ frustration at not being deployed sooner. A group of UK and international experts in delivering medical care during terrorist attacks have highlighted alternative approaches in the BMJ. In Paris in 2015, the integration of doctors with specialist police teams enabled about 100 wounded people in the Bataclan concert hall to be triaged and evacuated 30 minutes before the terrorists were killed. The experts writing in the BMJ believe the UK approach would have delayed any medical care reaching these victims for three hours. These are perilously hard judgment calls. Policymakers and commanders on the scene have to balance the likelihood that long delays in intervening will lead to more victims dying from their injuries against the increased risk to the lives of medical staff who are potentially putting themselves in the line of fire by entering the so-called 'hot zone'. First responders themselves need to be at the forefront of this debate. As the people who have the experience, face the risks and want more than anyone to save as many lives as possible, their leadership and insights are vital. In the wake of the Streatham attack the government is looking at everything from sentencing policy to deradicalisation. Deciding how best to save the wounded needs equal priority in the response to terrorism. Read full story Source: The Guardian, 7 February 2020
  2. Content Article
    This review was carried out in response to the very low numbers of investigations or reviews of deaths at Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust. Over a four-year period, fewer than 1% of deaths in Southern Health’s learning disability services and 0.3% of deaths in their mental health services for older people were investigated as a serious incident requiring investigation. Throughout this review, families and carers have told the CQC that they often have a poor experience of investigations and are not always treated with kindness, respect and honesty. This was particularly the case for families and carers of people with a mental health problem or learning disability. However, there is currently no single framework for NHS trusts that sets out what they need to do to maximise the learning from deaths that may be the result of problems in care. This means that there are a range of systems and processes in place, and that practice varies widely across providers. As a result, learning from deaths is not being given enough consideration in the NHS and opportunities to improve care for future patients are being missed. This reports sets out the next steps.
  3. Content Article
    This report from the New South Wales Agency for Clinical Innovation draws on scientific literature, empirical data and experiential evidence from patients, carers and clinicians regarding over-diagnosis and over-treatment in frail elderly patients. Underlying reasons for over-diagnosis and over-treatment include professional, cultural, organisational, health system, patient and carer and technology issues. A shift towards balanced care that supports realistic expectations and delivery models informed by research, empirical and experiential knowledge is required to address issues related to over-treatment and over-diagnosis.
  4. Content Article
    Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT) is designed to improve the quality of care within the NHS by reducing unwarranted variations. By tackling variations in the way services are delivered across the NHS, and by sharing best practice between trusts, GIRFT identifies changes that will help improve care and patient outcomes, as well as delivering efficiencies such as the reduction of unnecessary procedures and cost savings. Importantly, GIRFT is led by frontline clinicians who are expert in the areas they are reviewing. This means the data that underpins the GIRFT methodology is being reviewed by people who understand those disciplines and manage those services on a daily basis. The GIRFT team visit every trust carrying out the specialties they are reviewing, investigating the data with their peers and discussing the individual challenges they face.
  5. Content Article
    This course, is for all members of the multidisciplinary team who provide airway support to patients, or care for patients with a compromised airway. This includes anaesthetists, anaesthesia associates, operating department practitioners, nurses, physiotherapists, adult and paediatric intensivists, prehospital and emergency medicine physicians, paramedics, head and neck surgeons and members of the cardiac arrest team. By the end of the course, you'll be able to: improve your strategies to deal with the unexpected difficult airway and explore guidelines to use in special circumstances. identify the key learning points and recommendations from the 4th National Audit Project (NAP4) on major complications of airway management in the UK. apply the principles of multidisciplinary planning, communication and teamwork in shared airways interventions. describe the technical and non-technical aspects of safe airway management for patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery, and the critically ill. engage in a global discussion on airway matters with health professionals from around the world.
  6. Content Article
    The study achieved its aim of beginning a consensus building process to develop and validate a preliminary list of candidate never events for primary care dentistry. Consensus was achieved on a list of nine candidate never events covering a range of potentially serious system wide issues, most of which relate to patient safety checking procedures. At the time of publication, this was one of a small number of dental studies with an explicit focus in terms of developing a tool to help improve patient safety related work practices and performance in this setting, potentially reducing risks to practitioners and practices alike.
×