Safety on the ground: using critical incident technique to explore the factors influencing medical registrars' provision of safe care.

BACKGROUND: Avoidable patient harm in hospitals is common, and doctors in training can provide underused but crucial insights into the influencers of patient safety as those working 'on the ground' within the system. This study aimed to explore the factors that influence safe care from the perspective of medical registrars, to identify targets for safety-related improvements. METHODS: This study used enhanced critical incident technique (CIT), a qualitative methodology that results in a focused understanding of significant factors influencing an activity, to identify practical solutions. We interviewed 12 out of 17 consenting medical registrars in Scotland, asking them to recount their observations during clinical experiences where something happened that positively or negatively impacted on patient safety. Data were analysed manually using a modified content analysis with credibility checks as per enhanced CIT, with data exhaustiveness reached after six registrars. RESULTS: A total of 221 critical incidents impacting patient safety were identified. These were inductively placed into 24 categories within 4 overarching categories: Individual skills, encompassing individual behavioural and technical skills; Collaboration, regarding how communication, trust, support and flexibility shape interprofessional collaboration; Organisation, concerning organisational systems and staffing and Training environment, relating to culture, civility, having a voice and learning at work. Practical targets for safety-related interventions were identified, such as clear policies for patient care ownership or educational interventions to foster civility. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a rigorous and focused understanding of the factors influencing patient safety in hospitals, using the 'insider' perspective of the medical registrar. Safety goes beyond the individual and is reliant on safe system design, interprofessional collaboration and a culture of support, learning and respect. Organisations should also promote flexibility within clinical practice when patient needs do not conform to standardised care pathways. We suggest targeted interventions within educational and organisational priorities to improve safety in hospitals.

Improving surgical training: Establishing a surgical anatomy programme in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognized that a sound foundation in surgical anatomy is a cornerstone of safe surgical practice, yet many trainees struggle with the upskilling in anatomy that is required to support their day-to-day practice. In the context of the UK-wide Improving Surgical Training pilot, we set out to establish a surgical anatomy programme for core surgical trainees in the Scotland Deanery. The aim was to enable all trainees to review the surgical anatomy of the whole body to MRCS level at least once during core surgical training. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Teaching was delivered in Edinburgh, with trainees commuting from all parts of the Scotland Deanery. Individual teaching days focused on the surgical anatomy of the head and neck, trunk and limbs, using a combination of lectures (principles and cases) and interactive demonstrations on prosected specimens. Faculty comprised a balance of surgical demonstrators and senior academic staff, including MRCS examiners. RESULTS: In total, 16 individual teaching sessions were attended by over 300 trainees across the first 2 years of the programme. Evaluation form response rate was nearly 80%. The programme was highly rated by trainees in relation to the method of delivery, level of teaching and surgical focus. CONCLUSION: Surgical anatomy remains an integral part of surgical training. Our experience in developing a deanery-wide surgical anatomy programme highlights the crucial links between medical school, training deanery and surgical college. This collaborative approach can be extended to higher surgical training and continuing professional development, and the methods can be adapted to meet the needs of trainees in different parts of the globe.

Study protocol for resolution of organ injury in acute pancreatitis (RESORP): an observational prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Survivors of acute pancreatitis (AP) have shorter overall survival and increased incidence of new-onset cardiovascular, respiratory, liver and renal disease, diabetes mellitus and cancer compared with the general population, but the mechanisms that explain this are yet to be elucidated. Our aim is to characterise the precise nature and extent of organ dysfunction following an episode of AP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an observational prospective cohort study in a single centre comprising a University hospital with an acute and emergency receiving unit and clinical research facility. Participants will be adult patient admitted with AP. Participants will undergo assessment at recruitment, 3 months and 3 years. At each time point, multiple biochemical and/or physiological assessments to measure cardiovascular, respiratory, liver, renal and cognitive function, diabetes mellitus and quality of life. Recruitment was from 30 November 2017 to 31 May 2020; last follow-up measurements is due on 31 May 2023. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of new-onset type 3c diabetes mellitus during follow-up. Secondary outcome measures include: quality of life analyses (SF-36, Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index); montreal cognitive assessment; organ system physiological performance; multiomics predictors of AP severity, detection of premature cellular senescence. In a nested cohort within the main cohort, individuals may also consent to multiparameter MRI scan, echocardiography, pulmonary function testing, cardiopulmonary exercise testing and pulse-wave analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received the following approvals: UK IRAS Number 178615; South-east Scotland Research Ethics Committee number 16/SS/0065. Results will be made available to AP survivors, caregivers, funders and other researchers. Publications will be open-access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03342716) and ISRCTN50581876; Pre-results.