Jump to content

Search the hub

Showing results for tags 'Safety II'.

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


  • All
    • Commissioning, service provision and innovation in health and care
    • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • 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


  • 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
    • Climate change/sustainability
  • Coronavirus (COVID-19)
    • Blogs
    • Data, research and statistics
    • Frontline insights during the pandemic
    • Good practice and useful resources
    • Guidance
    • Mental health
    • Exit strategies
    • Patient recovery
  • Culture
    • Bullying and fear
    • Good practice
    • Occupational health and safety
    • Safety culture programmes
    • Second victim
    • Speak Up Guardians
    • Staff safety
    • Whistle blowing
  • Improving patient safety
    • Clinical governance and audits
    • Design for safety
    • Disasters averted/near misses
    • Equipment and facilities
    • Error traps
    • Health inequalities
    • Human factors (improving human performance in care delivery)
    • Improving systems of care
    • Implementation of improvements
    • International development and humanitarian
    • 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
    • Business case for patient safety
    • Boards
    • Clinical leadership
    • Exec teams
    • Inquiries
    • International reports
    • National/Governmental
    • Patient Safety Commissioner
    • Quality and safety reports
    • Techniques
    • Other
  • Organisations linked to patient safety (UK and beyond)
    • Government and ALB direction and guidance
    • International patient safety
    • Regulators and their regulations
  • Patient engagement
    • Consent and privacy
    • Harmed care patient pathways/post-incident pathways
    • How to engage for patient safety
    • Keeping patients safe
    • Patient-centred care
    • Patient stories
  • Patient safety in health and care
    • Care settings
    • Conditions
    • Diagnosis
    • High risk areas
    • Learning disabilities
    • Medication
    • Mental health
    • Men's health
    • Patient management
    • Social care
    • Transitions of care
    • Women's health
  • Patient Safety Learning
    • Patient Safety Learning campaigns
    • Patient Safety Learning documents
    • Patient Safety Learning news archive
    • 2-minute Tuesdays
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Annual Conference 2018
    • Patient Safety Learning Awards 2019
    • Patient Safety Learning Interviews
    • Patient Safety Learning webinars
  • Professionalising patient safety
    • Accreditation for patient safety
    • Competency framework
    • Medical students
    • Patient safety standards
    • Training
  • Research, data and insight
    • Data and insight
    • Research
  • Miscellaneous


  • News

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start

Last updated

  • Start

Filter by number of...


  • Start



First name

Last name


Join a private group (if appropriate)

About me



Found 50 results
  1. Content Article
    Resilient Health Care, Volume 3 (2016) Reconciling Work-as-Imagined and Work-as-Done Edited ByJeffrey Braithwaite, Robert L. Wears, Erik Hollnagel Delivering Resilient Health Care (2019) Edited By Erik Hollnagel, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Robert L. Wears Working Across Boundaries (2019) Resilient Health Care, Volume 5 Edited By Jeffrey Braithwaite, Erik Hollnagel, Garth S Hunte Resilient Health Care (2021) Muddling Through with Purpose, Volume 6 Edited By Jeffrey Braithwaite, Erik Hollnagel, Garth Hunte
  2. Content Article
    Presentations Jeffrey Braithwaite: Fixing problems that never happened: how to enact safety-II? Jessica Mesman: Exnovation: about ways of knowing and doing within real-life complexity in health Care Kieran Walshe: The regulatory response: how regulation might help or hinder organisational innovation, resilience, safety and improvement? Workshops Renate Verkaik, Annemiek Stoopendaal, Chair Paul Robben: New forms of regulation (the inspection of things that go right) Gerdienke Ubels, Sonja Jerak- Zuiderent: Narrative & generative accountability Gerdienke Ubels: ‘Renewed Quality Awareness’ (2012-2014) Yolande Witman, Julianne Meijers: New practices and technology to enact resilience in governance Suzanne Rutz, Hester van de Bovenkamp, Antoinette de Bont, Ian Leistikow: ‘Everyday life’ accountability
  3. Content Article
    This table originated in From Safety-I to Safety-II: A White Paper
  4. Event
    This webinar offers a chance to explore the challenges and opportunities of the Safety-II approach with Mark Sujan, co-author of the BMJ Quality and Safety article ‘The problem with making Safety-II work in healthcare.’ In 2020 Q’s ‘Organisational Resilience & Safety-II’ Special Interest Group (SIG) ran workshops to share adaptations being made to address the emerging COVID-19 crisis. Many solutions were shared but significant challenges were identified. In this webinar we will build on the insights found and explore the arguments in the recent BMJ Quality and Safety article, ‘The problem with making Safety-II work in healthcare.’ We will be joined by the paper’s co-author Mark Sujan, as we lean into the promises and potential of Safety-II, and what gaps we need to bridge to revolutionise our understanding of what safety truly is in health care. The one hour webinar will: Outline the challenges and opportunities of a Safety-II approach Allow you to hear from peers implementing Safety-II Provide you with an opportunity to discuss your experiences of Safety-II in small groups Register for the webinar
  5. Content Article
    Safety-II is rapidly capturing the attention of the improvement world. However, there is very little guidance on how to apply it in practice. THIS Institute at the University of Cambridge have funded a study to explore how Safety-II (or Resilient Health Care) is being translated into healthcare policy and practice. Ruth is looking for people to take part in a one-off interview. She wants to speak to people who: work within the NHS to improve patient safety (whatever your role!) have or are applying Safety-II principles to improve safety in either maternity, A&E, ICU or anaesthetics (however successfully you feel you are doing it!) More information is attached. To get involved please contact Ruth R.M.Baxter@leeds.ac.uk and @RuthMBaxter
  6. Event
    After two years with virtual workshops due to the Covid-19 pandemic, we are pleased to announce that the fifth International Workshop on Safety-II in Practice will be organised on site in Edinburgh, Scotland on September 7-9, 2022. The Workshop is organised by FRAMsynt. The workshop will begin with an optional half-day tutorial on Safety-II in Practice in the afternoon of September 7 (1330-1730 BST), and continue with two days of meetings and discussions from September 8 (0830-1700 BST) to September 9 (0830-1500 BST). There will be a walking tour of Edinburgh old town (hosted by Steven Shorrock) and a dinner on the evening of September 8 for those who wish to join. Aim of the workshop The aim of the workshop is to share experiences from existing and/or planned applications of a Safety-II approach in various industries and practices. The workshop will give the participants an opportunity to present and discuss problems encountered and lessons learned – good as well as bad, practical as well as methodological. The workshop is a unique opportunity for safety professionals and researchers to interact with like-minded colleagues, to debate the strengths and weaknesses of a Safety-II approach, and to share ideas for further developments. The guiding principle for the workshop is “long discussions interrupted by short presentations”. In order to achieve this, the number of participants will be limited to 60 – first come, first served. Participation The workshop is open to everyone regardless of their level of experience with Safety-II. It will address the use of Safety-II in a variety of fields and for purposes ranging from investigations, performance analyses, organisational management and development, individual and organisational learning, and resilience. The workshop will provide a unique opportunity to: Discuss and exchange experiences on how a Safety-II approach can be used to analyse and manage complex socio-technical systems. Receive feedback on and support for your own Safety-II projects and ideas. Learn about the latest developments and application areas of Safety-II. Develop a perspective on the long-term potential of a Safety-II approach. Discussion topics, presentations and papers You can contribute actively to the workshop by submitting proposals for: Topics or themes for panel discussions (preferably with a presentation or introduction, but open suggestions of themes are also welcome). Presentations of ongoing or already completed work in industry and/or academia. Ideas that you would like to get a second opinion on. Questions or issues that you have been wondering about and would like to hear more about. The relevance of a Safety-II perspective for individual and organisational learning. The strategic management of Safety-II: how to introduce changes to routines and daily practice. For each type of proposal, please provide a short abstract (about 100 – 200 words, but even less if need be) with a summary of what you would like to present or discuss and how you want to be involved. All proposals will be reviewed and comments to the submitters will be provided. Please submit your proposed contribution to: contact@humanisticsystems.com Register
  7. Content Article
    This article from Adrian Plunkett and Emma Plunkett, discusses some of the theoretical limitations of the prevailing approach to patient safety and introduce emerging, complementary approaches in this field of practice. Safety-II and resilience engineering represent a new paradigm of safety, characterised by focusing on the entirety of work, with a system-wide lens, rather than single incidents of failure. More overtly positive approaches are available, specifically focusing on success—both outstanding success and everyday success—including exnovation, appreciative inquiry, learning from excellence and positive deviance. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. The new methods described in this article are not intended as replacements of the current methods, rather they are presented as complementary tools, designed to allow the reader to take a balanced and holistic view of patient safety.
  8. Community Post
    The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges have published the first National patient safety syllabus that will underpin the development of curricula for all NHS staff as part of the NHS Patient Safety Strategy: https://www.pslhub.org/learn/professionalising-patient-safety/training/staff-clinical/national-patient-safety-syllabus-open-for-comment-r1399/ Via the above link you can access a ‘key points’ document which provides some of the context for the syllabus and answers to some frequently asked questions. AOMRC are inviting key stakeholders to review this iteration of the syllabus (1.0) and provide feedback via completing the online survey or e-mailing Rose Jarvis before 28 February 2020. I would be interested to hear people's thoughts and feedback and any comments which people are happy to share which they've submitted via the online survey
  9. Community Post
    I am interested in what colleagues here think about the proposed patient safety specialist role? https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/introducing-patient-safety-specialists/ https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-patient-safety-hospitals-mistakes-harm-a9259486.html Can this development make a difference? Or will it lead to safety becoming one person's responsibility and / or more of the same as these responsibilities will be added to list of duties of already busy staff? Can these specialist be a driver for culture change including embedding a just culture and a focus on safety-II and human factors? What support do trusts and specialists need for this to happen? Some interesting thoughts on this here: https://twitter.com/TerryFairbanks/status/1210357924104736768
  10. Content Article
    A year ago, you implemented a new approach to auditing at Barnsley. Can you tell us what prompted it? In healthcare, we tend to measure safety by looking at negatives. The number of falls, the number of category 2 pressure ulcers, the number of adverse events etc. Our whole system is built on it, from local auditing and Datix reporting, to CQC inspections. But counting the number of pressure ulcers for example, doesn’t really tell you about the standards of pressure ulcer care. I wanted to look at things differently; to focus more on the interventions and good practice that helps keep patients safe. Where did you start? We started with pressure ulcer reduction. Our Tissue Viability team and I looked at the learning from Root Cause Analyses and worked together to create a list of all of the things we can do to help prevent pressure ulcers. Skin assessments, pillow positioning, moving patients etc. If we ticked every box for every patient, would we prevent pressure ulcers altogether (unless the patient doesn’t follow the advice)? I took this list and worked with the digital app company, Perfect Ward to build a simple-to-use auditing tool. It allows us to measure safety by our standards of care and interventions rather than counting negative outputs. If our standards of care are high and a lot of people are still getting pressure ulcers, we have assurance on the standard of care being delivered. How did you implement the pressure ulcers audit? Once we had created the list of standards and preventative measures, we used the app to do an audit of around 35% of patients on each ward. At the start of the project, we found that teams were on average hitting 64% of the standards. The digital app provides a performance rating system, with red with red (less than 70%), amber (greater than 70% but less than 90%) and green (90% or more). The performance of the team against these ratings dictate how we would support each team moving forward. For example, if an audit showed a team to be performing at the lowest level (red), we made a commitment to support them on a weekly basis until they were performing at the highest level (green). How have staff responded? Staff have responded really well. This system provides recognition, and credit where credit is due. It can help staff to feel confident when they are providing high standards of care and to know that they are doing the right thing for the patients. Where there is room for improvement, the Perfect Ward app makes it is easy to see where the gaps in the delivery of interventions exist so they can be tackled. The tissue viability nurses are there to support, coach and to help problem solve. There may be certain interventions that are consistently missed which can sometimes be a sign that the wider organisation needs to help solve the issue. Safety is a shared responsibility, and we need to make sure we have the systems in place to support success. What support have you needed along the way? It’s really important to have passionate people who understand and believe in this approach to auditing. You need to have an Executive Team who are prepared to look at measuring outcomes differently. I’m lucky, our Director and Deputy Director of nursing are very supportive. It’s also important to acknowledge that it is not a silver bullet; change takes time. That can be frustrating for some people who want to see results quickly. It’s taken a year but teams are now hitting on average 94% of the standards set out by the auditing tool, and we are starting to see decreases in category 2 pressure ulcers (per 1000 bed days) since June 2020. What have you learnt? It has been really important to constantly engage staff and build good relationships, to make sure we understand everyone’s competing priorities. The approach has been a great enabler for quality improvement methodology, empowering teams to find their own solutions and really own the results. What’s next? This approach to auditing is not rocket science. It can be used to raise standards of care in most circumstances within health and social care – without focusing on the negatives. We have successfully applied it to both pressure ulcer and falls prevention at Barnsley and just started on nutrition and hydration. In the future I’d like to see it used in other areas, to identify what excellent dementia care in hospitals looks like for example. It could also be used to ensure that staff have a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding processes. Or to make sure patients are being well-fed. It really is just a blueprint that can be used to raise standards of care, and safety in any circumstance. Final thoughts? I personally don’t like to look at my work as reducing harm. I prefer to look at it in terms of improving the standards of care we give our patients. The difference is important. Photograph of the Tissue Viability Team. Above is an example of a checklist used for pressure sores. The graph above shows the trust average on delivery of the pressure ulcer prevention interventions across adult inpatient wards over a 12 month period. The 'distribution of score' graph above shows the percentages scored across the adult inpatient wards for each month over a 12 month period. This graph shows more areas achieving 90% (or more) and fewer scoring 70% or less as time has progressed.
  11. Content Article
    Key points Learning from Excellence (LfE) is a system for capturing examples of good practice in healthcare as a complementary approach to traditional incident reporting. The LfE philosophy proposes that learning from what works well in a system enables improvements in the quality and safety of the work, and the morale of staff performing it. LfE systems comprise simple reporting forms for peer-to-peer positive feedback with sharing of examples to enable wider learning. LfE reporting identifies excellence and learning opportunities in both process and outcome. LfE is aligned with aspects of appreciative inquiry and Safety-II.