|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Classifieds | Contact | More... | Topics | Search | Login | Buy full access |
→ Contents list for this issue
→ More articles on General medicine
→ More articles on Administration and health services
To the Editor: The study by Nichols and colleagues1 and the associated editorial by Hughes2 struck a chord of familiarity for me, as patient safety issues are currently high on the political agenda in the United Kingdom.
An estimated 850 000 incidents of harm or near harm affect National Health Service (NHS) hospital patients in the UK each year.3 In April 2004, the Health Foundation (an independent charity that aims to improve the quality of UK health care), together with the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, launched the Safer Patients Initiative (SPI). The four hospitals initially chosen to participate conducted hospital-wide programs to radically improve patient safety, with the aim of reducing adverse events by 50% by October 2006. In November 2006, Phase 2 was launched, adding 20 more sites.3 These hospitals meet regularly to report on progress and exchange ideas. Discrete projects focus on medicines reconciliation, ward-based care, critical care, and perioperative care.
The overall aim of the SPI is to improve the patient safety culture within each organisation. Specific targets for all participating hospitals include a 15% reduction in mortality of in-hospital patients; 300 days between central line bloodstream infections in critical care units; 80% of blood sugar levels in diabetic patients falling within their target treatment range; a 30% reduction in cardiac arrest calls; and 50% reductions in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections, harm from anticoagulation, and surgical site infections.
In my intensive care unit, hand hygiene compliance among medical staff has been regularly audited and has improved from a range of 20%–90% per day to 60%–100%. This compares favourably with a recent Australian hand hygiene initiative.4
When practice improvements are shown in one location, the project team takes on the responsibility of spreading these across the hospital. Initial scepticism from senior clinicians and nurses in my hospital has generally been replaced by cooperation and, in many cases, ideas for other ways to improve delivery of safer clinical care.
Large multisite evidence-based trials in intensive care units in the United States showed that, with focused effort on sterile technique and catheter care and by rectifying lapses in standard procedures, a reduction of 66% in catheter-related bloodstream infections was possible.5 The SPI is trying to replicate results such as these within a relatively short period. My intensive care unit has now gone 190 days without a line-related bacteraemia; previously, we had infections almost every month.
The SPI Phase 2 completion date is November 2008, with full national reporting due at that time. It is intended that practice improvements will then be spread across the NHS. The experience in my hospital has been that sharing experiences both within the hospital and externally has led to tangible progress in this area.
Royal London Hospital, London, UK.
Peter.ShirleyATbartsandthelondon.nhs.uk
|
Home | Issues | eMJA shop | Terms of use | Classifieds | More... | Contact | Topics | Search |
©The Medical Journal of Australia 2008 www.mja.com.au PRINT ISSN: 0025-729X ONLINE ISSN: 1326-5377