Development and application of 'systems thinking' principles for quality improvement.

INTRODUCTION: 'Systems thinking' is often recommended in healthcare to support quality and safety activities but a shared understanding of this concept and purposeful guidance on its application are limited. Healthcare systems have been described as complex where human adaptation to localised circumstances is often necessary to achieve success. Principles for managing and improving system safety developed by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (EUROCONTROL; a European intergovernmental air navigation organisation) incorporate a 'Safety-II systems approach' to promote understanding of how safety may be achieved in complex work systems. We aimed to adapt and contextualise the core principles of this systems approach and demonstrate the application in a healthcare setting. METHODS: The original EUROCONTROL principles were adapted using consensus-building methods with front-line staff and national safety leaders. RESULTS: Six interrelated principles for healthcare were agreed. The foundation concept acknowledges that 'most healthcare problems and solutions belong to the system'. Principle 1 outlines the need to seek multiple perspectives to understand system safety. Principle 2 prompts us to consider the influence of prevailing work conditions-demand, capacity, resources and constraints. Principle 3 stresses the importance of analysing interactions and work flow within the system. Principle 4 encourages us to attempt to understand why professional decisions made sense at the time and principle 5 prompts us to explore everyday work including the adjustments made to achieve success in changing system conditions.A case study is used to demonstrate the application in an analysis of a system and in the subsequent improvement intervention design. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the adapted principles underpins, and is characteristic of, a holistic systems approach and may aid care team and organisational system understanding and improvement.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in the community after hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists' completion of medication reconciliation in the community after hospital discharge is intended to reduce harm due to prescribed or omitted medication and increase healthcare efficiency, but the effectiveness of this approach is not clear. We systematically review the literature to evaluate intervention effectiveness in terms of discrepancy identification and resolution, clinical relevance of resolved discrepancies and healthcare utilisation, including readmission rates, emergency department attendance and primary care workload. METHODS: This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of extracted data. Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED),Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Scopus, NHS Evidence and the Cochrane databases were searched using a combination of medical subject heading terms and free-text search terms. Controlled studies evaluating pharmacist-led medication reconciliation in the community after hospital discharge were included. Study quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Evidence was assessed through meta-analysis of readmission rates. Discrepancy identification rates, emergency department attendance and primary care workload were assessed narratively. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included, comprising five randomised controlled trials, six cohort studies and three pre-post intervention studies. Twelve studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. Increased identification and resolution of discrepancies was demonstrated in the four studies where this was evaluated. Reduction in clinically relevant discrepancies was reported in two studies. Meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant reduction in readmission rate. There was no consistent evidence of reduction in emergency department attendance or primary care workload. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists can identify and resolve discrepancies when completing medication reconciliation after hospital discharge, but patient outcome or care workload improvements were not consistently seen. Future research should examine the clinical relevance of discrepancies and potential benefits on reducing healthcare team workload.

An open label, single-centre, randomized trial of spinal cord stimulation vs. percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization in patients with refractory angina pectoris: the SPiRiT trial.

AIMS: Refractory angina pectoris leads to significant morbidity. Treatment options include percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization (PMR) and spinal cord stimulation (SCS). This study was designed to compare these two treatments. METHODS AND RESULTS: Subjects with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class 3/4 angina and reversible perfusion defects were randomized to SCS (34) or PMR (34). The primary outcome was to compare exercise treadmill time on a modified Bruce protocol over 12 months. Thirty subjects in both groups completed 12-month follow-up. The mean total exercise time was 6.38 +/- 3.45 min in the SCS group and 7.41+/-3.68 min in the PMR group at baseline and 7.08 +/- 0.67 min in the SCS group and 7.12 +/-0.71 min in the PMR group at 12 months (95% confidence limits for the difference between the groups -1.02 to + 2.2 min, P = 0.466). There were no differences in angina-free exercise capacity, CCS class, and quality of life between treatments. SCS patients had more adverse events in the first 12 months, mainly angina or SCS system related (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: There was little evidence of a difference in effectiveness between SCS and PMR in patients with refractory angina.