National statutory reporting: not even ticking the boxes? The quality of 'Learning from Deaths' reporting in quality accounts within the NHS in England 2017-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Regulation through statutory reporting is used in healthcare internationally to improve accountability, quality of care and patient safety. Since 2017, within the National Health Service (NHS) in England, NHS Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are legally required to report annually both quantitative and qualitative information related to patient deaths within their care within their publicly available Quality Accounts as part of a countrywide patient safety programme: The Learning from Deaths (LfDs) programme. METHOD: All LfDs reports published between 2017 (programme inception) and 2020 were reviewed and evaluated through a critical realist lens, quantitatively reported using descriptive statistics and qualitatively using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: In 2017/2018, 44% of NSCTs reported all six statutory elements of the LfDs reporting regulations, in 2019/2020 35% of NSCTs were reporting this information. A small number of NSCTs did not report any parts of the LfDs regulatory requirements between 2017 and 2020. Multiple qualitative themes arose from this study suggesting problematic engagement with the LfDs programme, erroneous reporting accuracy and errors in written communication. CONCLUSIONS: The LfDs programme has, to some extent, reduced variation and improved consistency to the way that NSCTs identify, report and investigate deaths. However, 3 years into the LfDs programme, the majority of NSCTs are not reporting as required by law. This makes the validity of National statutory reporting in Quality Accounts within the NHS in England questionable as a regulatory process.

Is anybody 'Learning' from deaths? Sequential content and reflexive thematic analysis of national statutory reporting within the NHS in England 2017-2020.

INTRODUCTION: The imperative to learn when a patient dies due to problems in care is absolute. In 2017, the Learning from Deaths (LfDs) framework, a countrywide patient safety programme, was launched in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. NHS Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are legally required to publish quantitative and qualitative information relating to deaths due to problems in care within their organisation, including any learning derived from these deaths. METHOD: All LfDs report from 2017 to 2020 were reviewed and evaluated, quantitatively and qualitatively using sequential content and reflexive thematic analysis, through a critical realist lens to understand what we can learn from LfDs reporting and the mechanisms enabling or preventing engagement with the LfDs programme. RESULTS: The majority of NSCTs have identified learning, actions and, to a lesser degree, assessed the impact of these actions. The most frequent learning relates to missed/delayed/uncoordinated care and communication/cultural issues. System issues and lack of resources feature infrequently. There is significant variation among NSCTs as to what 'learning' in this context actually means and a lack of oversight combining patient safety initiatives. DISCUSSION: Engagement of NSCTs with the LfDs programme varies significantly. Learning as a result of the LfDs programme is occurring. The ability, significance or value of this learning in preventing future patient deaths remains unclear. Consensus about what constitutes effective learning with regard to patient safety needs to be defined and agreed on.

Acute kidney injury in patients admitted to a liver intensive therapy unit with paracetamol-induced hepatotoxicity.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol overdose can cause acute kidney injury (AKI) independent of its hepatotoxic effects. We aimed to determine the prevalence of AKI (AKI Network definition) in those with paracetamol-induced hepatotoxicity, identify factors associated with development, assess impact on the outcomes of patient survival and length of stay and determine the proportion of patients recovering renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate > 60 mL/min) by the time of hospital discharge or transfer out. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2007, patients admitted to a tertiary referral liver intensive therapy unit (LITU) with paracetamol-induced hepatotoxicity were identified from a prospectively maintained database and evaluated. RESULTS: Those receiving a liver transplant were excluded (n = 54), leaving 302 patients. Renal function remained normal in 21%, the remainder developing AKI (Stages 1-8%, 2-6% and 3-65%). Vasopressor requirement, mechanical ventilation, higher admission phosphate and lower sodium levels along with a higher Day 3 lactate and lower haematocrit were associated with AKI. In survivors with AKI, 51% had recovery of renal function, while 7% remained dialysis dependant although none required it chronically. Overall, there was 25% mortality, all having Stage 3 AKI but AKI was only a univariate not multivariate predictor of reduced patient survival. AKI independently predicted longer length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: AKI is very common in critically ill patients with paracetamol-induced hepatotoxicity requiring LITU admission. Although outcomes are poorer with AKI than with normal renal function, they are better than those found in other intensive therapy unit populations. Gradual recovery of renal function is seen in all patients.

NHS 'Learning from Deaths' reports: a qualitative and quantitative document analysis of the first year of a countrywide patient safety programme.

OBJECTIVES: To review how National Health Service (NHS) Secondary Care Trusts (NSCTs) are using the Learning from Deaths (LfDs) programme to learn from and prevent, potentially preventable deaths. INTRODUCTION: Potentially preventable deaths occur worldwide within healthcare organisations. In England, inconsistencies in how NSCTs reviewed, investigated and shared LfDs, resulted in the introduction of national guidance on 'LfDs' in 2017. This guidance provides a 'framework for identifying, reporting, investigating and LfDs'. Amendments to NHS Quality Account regulations, legally require NSCTs in England to report quantitative and qualitative information relating to patient deaths annually. The programme intended NSCTs would share this learning and take measurable action to prevent future deaths. METHOD: We undertook qualitative and quantitative secondary data, document analysis of all NSCTs LfDs reports within their 2017/2018 Quality Accounts (n=222). RESULTS: All statutory elements of LfDs reporting were reported by 98 out of 222 (44%) NSCTs. The percentage of deaths judged more likely than not due to problems in healthcare was between 0% and 13%. The majority of NSCTs (89%) reported lessons learnt; the most common learning theme was poor communication. 106 out of 222 NSCTs (48%) have shared or plan to share the learning within their own organisation. The majority of NSCTs (86%) reported actions taken and 47% discussed or had a plan for assessment of impact. 37 out of 222 NSCTs (17%) mentioned involvement of bereaved families. CONCLUSIONS: The wide variation in reporting demonstrates that some NSCTs have engaged fully with LfDs, while other NSCTs appear to have disengaged with the programme. This may reveal a disparity in organisational learning and patient safety culture which could result in inequity for bereaved families. Many themes identified from the LfDs reports have previously been identified by national and international reports and inquiries.

Tumor length as a prognostic factor in esophageal malignancy: univariate and multivariate survival analyses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Gastrointestinal specialists generally feel that long esophageal tumors carry a worse prognosis and are likely to be more advanced than shorter lesions. Our aim was to investigate the relationship between histologically determined tumor length and aspects of tumor pathology and survival for patients with resected esophageal malignancy. METHODS: Three hundred and nine patients who underwent esophageal resection with curative intent in our unit between 1994 and 2003 were retrospectively analyzed. Pathological details such as TNM stage, differentiation, completeness of surgical resection, and overall stage were collected. Survival data were obtained for each patient and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Overall survival was used as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: There were 225 adenocarcinomas, 72 squamous cell carcinomas, and 12 other tumor types with a median tumor length of 3.5 cm (range 0.5-14 cm). Tumor length greater than 3.5 cm was associated with increasing T stage (P = 0.0001), N stage (P = 0.032), overall stage (P = 0.003), and involvement of the longitudinal resection margins (P = 0.02). Univariate analysis found tumor length greater than 3.5 cm was associated with worse overall survival compared with shorter tumors (P = 0.0002). Tumor length remained a significant prognostic factor on multivariate analysis (P = 0.04). Other prognostic factors on multivariate analysis were age, tumor differentiation, nodal involvement, and resection margin status. CONCLUSION: Tumor length greater than 3.5 cm (as determined histologically) is associated with worse disease stage and poor overall patient survival. If preoperative endoscopic tumor length bears a similar relationship, this could assist in patient selection for appropriate treatments.