Understanding patient safety performance and educational needs using the 'Safety-II' approach for complex systems.

Participation in projects to improve patient safety is a key component of general practice (GP) specialty training, appraisal and revalidation. Patient safety training priorities for GPs at all career stages are described in the Royal College of General Practitioners' curriculum. Current methods that are taught and employed to improve safety often use a 'find-and-fix' approach to identify components of a system (including humans) where performance could be improved. However, the complex interactions and inter-dependence between components in healthcare systems mean that cause and effect are not always linked in a predictable manner. The Safety-II approach has been proposed as a new way to understand how safety is achieved in complex systems that may improve quality and safety initiatives and enhance GP and trainee curriculum coverage. Safety-II aims to maximise the number of events with a successful outcome by exploring everyday work. Work-as-done often differs from work-as-imagined in protocols and guidelines and various ways to achieve success, dependent on work conditions, may be possible. Traditional approaches to improve the quality and safety of care often aim to constrain variability but understanding and managing variability may be a more beneficial approach. The application of a Safety-II approach to incident investigation, quality improvement projects, prospective analysis of risk in systems and performance indicators may offer improved insight into system performance leading to more effective change. The way forward may be to combine the Safety-II approach with 'traditional' methods to enhance patient safety training, outcomes and curriculum coverage.

Understanding and responding when things go wrong: key principles for primary care educators.

Learning from events with unwanted outcomes is an important part of workplace based education and providing evidence for medical appraisal and revalidation. It has been suggested that adopting a 'systems approach' could enhance learning and effective change. We believe the following key principles should be understood by all healthcare staff, especially those with a role in developing and delivering educational content for safety and improvement in primary care. When things go wrong, professional accountability involves accepting there has been a problem, apologising if necessary and committing to learn and change. This is easier in a 'Just Culture' where wilful disregard of safe practice is not tolerated but where decisions commensurate with training and experience do not result in blame and punishment. People usually attempt to achieve successful outcomes, but when things go wrong the contribution of hindsight and attribution bias as well as a lack of understanding of conditions and available information (local rationality) can lead to inappropriately blame 'human error'. System complexity makes reduction into component parts difficult; thus attempting to 'find-and-fix' malfunctioning components may not always be a valid approach. Finally, performance variability by staff is often needed to meet demands or cope with resource constraints. We believe understanding these core principles is a necessary precursor to adopting a 'systems approach' that can increase learning and reduce the damaging effects on morale when 'human error' is blamed. This may result in 'human error' becoming the starting point of an investigation and not the endpoint.

Practice nurse health checks for adults with intellectual disabilities: a cluster-design, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adults with intellectual disabilities have substantial health inequalities and poor access to health care. We assessed whether practice nurse-delivered health checks could improve the health of adults with intellectual disabilities compared with standard care. METHODS: In this cluster-design, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included general practices in Scotland, UK. From June to December, 2011, we randomly assigned (1:1) these general practices to either health checks plus standard care (health-checks group), or standard care only (control group), and we recruited the patients from these practices. Randomisation was done with stratification by number of GPs per practice and number of registered patients with intellectual disabilities (<20 or ≥20). Two research assistants were masked to allocation, and undertook the review of 9 month medical records and interviews. Participants and carers were not masked. The intervention was one health check designed especially for people with intellectual disabilities delivered by a practice nurse. The objective was improvement in health and health care 9 months after randomisation, and the primary outcome was the incidence of newly detected health needs being met by this timepoint. Whether needs were met was established by the investigators being masked to group allocation. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN43324841. FINDINGS: Between June 26 and Dec 20, 2011, we recruited 38 practices. 85 participants (from 16 practices) were randomly assigned to intervention and 67 (from 17 practices) to standard care; five of the identified practices did not supply any participants. 83 intervention and 66 standard care participants completed the trial. More newly detected health needs were met in the intervention group than in the control standard care group (median 1 [range 0-8], 76·4% met [SD 36·5] vs 2 [0-11], 72·6% met [35·4]; odds ratio [OR] 1·73 [95% CI 0·93-3·22], p=0·085), although this difference was not significant. Significantly more health monitoring needs were met in the intervention group than standard care (median 2 [0-20], 69·9% [SD 34·2] vs 2 [0-22], 56·8% [29·4], OR 2·38 [95% CI 1·31-4·32, p=0·0053]). The probability that health checks are cost effective was between 0·6 and 0·8, irrespective of the cost-effectiveness threshold level. Costs per patient were -£71·48 for health checks and -£20·56 for standard care. The difference (-£50·92) was not significant [95% CI -434 to 362]. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Health checks given by practice nurses to adults with intellectual disabilities produced health-care improvements that were more conducive to longer-term health than standard care given to this population. The intervention dominated standard care, being both cheaper and more effective. Health-check programmes might therefore be indicated for adults with intellectual disabilities. FUNDING: Scottish Government Change Fund, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Research and Development.