Healthcare systems worldwide have for decades sought to prioritise prompt diagnosis of cancer as a means to improve outcomes. The gatekeeping role of general practitioners (GPs) that restricts access to testing and referral,1 along with their relatively lower propensity to use diagnostic tests,2 has been offered as partial explanations for the UK’s consistently poor performance in cancer compared with other high-income countries.3

In this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety, Akter and colleagues examined primary care investigations prior to a cancer diagnosis using data on 53 252 patients and 1868 general practices from the 2018 English National Cancer Diagnostic Audit.4 Grouping tests into four categories (any investigation, blood tests, imaging and endoscopy), the study demonstrated large variation in use of tests in general practice prior to diagnosis with cancer. Recorded characteristics of practices accounted for only a small proportion of this variation,...

The significant adverse consequences of diagnostic errors are well established.1 2 Across clinical settings and study methods, diagnostic adverse events often lead to serious permanent disability or death and are frequently deemed preventable.3–5 In malpractice claims, diagnostic adverse events consistently account for more total serious harms than any other individual type of medical error,5 6 a finding supported by large, population-based estimates of total serious misdiagnosis-related harms.2 Despite this, they generally go unrecognised, unmeasured and unmonitored, causing the US National Academy of Medicine to label diagnostic errors as ‘a blind spot’ for healthcare delivery systems.1

Diagnostic errors have been described as ‘the bottom of the iceberg’ of patient safety. This analogy is intended to connote both their enormous impact and their unmeasured, hidden nature relative to more visible errors such as...

In this issue of the journal, the article ‘Developing the Allied Health Professionals workforce within mental health, learning disability, and autism inpatient services: Rapid review of learning from quality and safety incidents’ by Wilson and colleagues1 reviews materials on safety incidents in England published between 2014 and 2024, with a focus on the contribution of allied health professionals. In the context of this study, NHS England’s definition of ‘allied health professionals’ (AHPs) was used, namely the 14 registerable professions of art therapists (art/music/drama), chiropodists/podiatrists, dietitians, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, osteopaths, paramedics, physiotherapists, prosthetists/orthotists, radiographers and speech and language therapists.1 The review largely considers more extreme forms of harm, such as death (including homicide and suicide), abuse by staff and self-harm.

In this editorial, we take a reflective stance informed by critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis concerns itself with the use of language...

Quality improvement (QI) in the context of extremely limited healthcare access presents unique challenges, as the primary focus is often on increasing service quantity to meet needs. Access and quality in such situations can be at odds, as is the case with surgical care in resource-limited healthcare systems around the world. However, volumes and quality must advance in tandem to prevent inadvertent harm. In many healthcare systems, patients abandon treatment due to poor quality care despite reaching the hospital.1 These challenges are further magnified in very low-resource settings, where public hospitals serve populations in the lowest economic strata. Such realities underscore the vital importance of QI in such settings to build trust of communities in their healthcare system and providers.

An important contribution to the sparse body of literature in this space is the study by Barker et al in this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety.

Introduction

Use of investigations can help support the diagnostic process of patients with cancer in primary care, but the size of variation between patient group and between practices is unclear.

Methods

We analysed data on 53 252 patients from 1868 general practices included in the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit 2018 using a sequence of logistic regression models to quantify and explain practice-level variation in investigation use, accounting for patient-level case-mix and practice characteristics. Four types of investigations were considered: any investigation, blood tests, imaging and endoscopy.

Results

Large variation in practice use was observed (OR for 97.5th to 2.5th centile being 4.02, 4.33 and 3.12, respectively for any investigation, blood test and imaging). After accounting for patient case-mix, the spread of practice variation increased further to 5.61, 6.30 and 3.60 denoting that patients with characteristics associated with higher use (ie, certain cancer sites) are over-represented among practices with lower than the national average use of such investigation. Practice characteristics explained very little of observed variation, except for rurality (rural practices having lower use of any investigation) and concentration of older age patients (practices with older patients being more likely to use all types of investigations).

Conclusion

There is very large variation between practices in use of investigation in patients with cancer as part of the diagnostic process. It is conceivable that the diagnostic process can be improved if investigation use was to be increased in lower use practices, although it is also possible that there is overtesting in practices with very high use of investigations, and in fact both undertesting and overtesting may co-exist.

Background

Adverse event surveillance approaches underestimate the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors (DEs) related to hospital care.

Methods

We conducted a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of a stratified sample of patients hospitalised on general medicine using four criteria: transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), death within 90 days, complex clinical events, and none of the aforementioned high-risk criteria. Cases in higher-risk subgroups were over-sampled in predefined percentages. Each case was reviewed by two adjudicators trained to judge the likelihood of DE using the Safer Dx instrument; characterise harm, preventability and severity; and identify associated process failures using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research Taxonomy modified for acute care. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainty about DE or impact were reviewed by an expert panel. We used descriptive statistics to report population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs by demographic variables based on the weighted sample, and characteristics of harmful DEs. Multivariable models were used to adjust association of process failures with harmful DEs.

Results

Of 9147 eligible cases, 675 were randomly sampled within each subgroup: 100% of ICU transfers, 38.5% of deaths within 90 days, 7% of cases with complex clinical events and 2.4% of cases without high-risk criteria. Based on the weighted sample, the population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs were 7.2% (95% CI 4.66 to 9.80), 6.1% (95% CI 3.79 to 8.50) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.55 to 1.68), respectively. Harmful DEs were frequently characterised as delays (61.9%). Severely harmful DEs were frequent in high-risk cases (55.1%). In multivariable models, process failures in assessment, diagnostic testing, subspecialty consultation, patient experience, and history were significantly associated with harmful DEs.

Conclusions

We estimate that a harmful DE occurred in 1 of every 14 patients hospitalised on general medicine, the majority of which were preventable. Our findings underscore the need for novel approaches for adverse DE surveillance.

Background

Allied health professionals (AHPs) in inpatient mental health, learning disability and autism services work in cultures dominated by other professions who often poorly understand their roles. Furthermore, identified learning from safety incidents often lacks focus on AHPs and research is needed to understand how AHPs contribute to safe care in these services.

Methods

A rapid literature review was conducted on material published from February 2014 to February 2024, reporting safety incidents within adult inpatient mental health, learning disability and autism services in England, with identifiable learning for AHPs. 115 reports/publications were included, predominantly consisting of independent investigations by NHS England, prevent future deaths reports and Care Quality Commission reports.

Findings

Misunderstanding of AHP roles, from senior leadership to frontline staff, led to AHPs being disempowered and excluded from conversations/decisions, and patients not getting sufficient access to AHPs, contributing to safety incidents. A central thread ‘organisational culture’ ran through five subthemes: (1) (lack of) effective multidisciplinary team (MDT) working, evidenced by poor communication, siloed working, marginalisation of AHPs and a lack of psychological safety; (2) (lack of) AHP involvement in patient care including care and discharge planning, and risk assessment/management. Some MDTs had no AHPs, some recommendations by AHPs were not actioned and referrals to AHPs were not always made when indicated; (3) training needs were identified for AHPs and other professions; (4) staffing issues included understaffing of AHPs and (5) senior management and leadership were found to not value/understand AHP roles, and instil a blame culture. A need for cohesive, well-led and nurturing MDTs was emphasised.

Conclusion

Understanding and recognition of AHP roles is lacking at all levels of healthcare organisations. AHPs can be marginalised in MDTs, presenting risks to patients and missed opportunities for quality improvement. Raising awareness of the essential roles of AHPs is critical for improving quality and safety in inpatient mental health, learning disability and autism services.

Background

Countries with resource-poor health systems have struggled to improve access to and the quality of caesarean section (C-section; CS) for women seeking care in public health facilities. Access to C-section in Bihar State remains very low, while access has increased in many other contexts.

Methods

We used quality improvement (QI) combined with targeted resource management to test and implement changes that were designed to increase C-section delivery. We compared C-section delivery percentages after the interventions across eight intervened (QI) hospitals and between QI hospitals and the remaining 22 non-intervened (non-QI) hospitals with baseline CS <10%. We linked patterns of improvement and sustainability to theoretical drivers of improvement and timing of interventions.

Results

In QI hospitals, C-section percentage increased from 2.9% at baseline to 5.9% in the intervention phase and 4.6% in the post intervention phase. In non-QI hospitals, we observed a small change (2.6–3.3%) during the same time period of the interventions in the QI hospitals. Addition of skilled personnel resulted in increased C-section percentage in QI hospitals (3.6–5.9%) but not non-QI hospitals (3.4–3.2%).

Conclusions

C-section availability increased for a population of women giving birth following initiation of QI BTS collaborative in a low-income country public sector setting that has historically struggled to provide this service. Addition of obstetric and operating room resources alone, without interventions to support system changes, may not result in additional increase in C-section delivery. The adaptive implementation model may contribute to efforts to provide more access to C-sections in other very resource-limited settings.

The investigation of incidents and accidents, together with subsequent reflection and action, is an essential component of safety management in every safety-critical industry, including healthcare. A number of formal methods of incident analysis were developed in the early days of risk management and patient safety, including the London Protocol which was published in 2004. In this paper, we describe the development of a new edition of the London Protocol. We explain the need for a revised and expanded version of the London Protocol, addressing both the changes in healthcare in the last two decades and what has been learnt from the experience of incident analysis across the world. We describe a systematic process of development of the new edition drawing on the findings of a narrative review of incident analysis methods. The principal changes in the new edition are as follows: increased emphasis and guidance on the engagement of patients and families as partners in the investigation; giving more attention to the support of patients, families and staff in the aftermath of an incident; emphasising the value of a small number of in-depth analyses combined with thematic reviews of wider problems; including proposals and guidance for the examination of much longer time periods; emphasising the need to highlight good care as well as problems; adding guidance on direct observation of the work environment; providing a more structured and wide-ranging approach to recommendations and including more guidance on how to write safety incident reports. Finally, we offer some proposals to place research on incident analysis on a firmer foundation and make suggestions for the practice and implementation of incident investigation within safety management systems.

Diagnostic delay, a type of diagnostic error, is the failure to establish an accurate and timely diagnosis; diagnostic delay remains a significant source of error in healthcare.1 As in other areas of medicine, there are racial and ethnic disparities in the risk of diagnostic delay; increased risk has been found among marginalised populations in a wide range of conditions, including breast cancer, acute coronary syndrome and even appendicitis in children.2–4 In issue 34:3 of BMJQS, Elena et al present the results of their systematic review of the perspectives of minoritised patients on the causes of diagnostic delay.5 They further map their findings onto an adapted Model of Pathways to Treatment, a conceptual model widely used to describe the diagnostic process.6 Through their work, the authors add voices from marginalised groups to a field of study where patient...

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has quietly become a global health crisis, claiming 1.1 million lives annually as of 2021. If left unchecked, the death toll is forecasted to climb to 1.9 million per year by 2050.1Despite the mounting volume of data on the burden of AMR, the global response has been sluggish with limited progress.

Global leaders agree that multi-sectorial and multi-faceted approaches are needed to limit the emergence and spread of AMR. Antimicrobial use is a key driver of AMR, where as much as 50% of use is unnecessary.2 3 In humans, the vast majority of antimicrobial use occurs outside of hospitals, making this setting crucial for antimicrobial stewardship efforts. With the estimated number of global outpatient treatment courses of antimicrobials in the billions,4 curtailing inappropriate prescribing is a daunting task. However, audit and feedback has a robust evidence base and...

Structural and social barriers to healthcare contribute significantly to the poorer health outcomes observed among minoritised ethnic people around the world.1 2 Globally, women who are members of an ethnic group that is a minority in their country of residence have been reported to receive suboptimal maternity care. This can include access challenges, poorer quality of care and support, as well as discrimination.3 4 This global pattern is mirrored in UK maternity services, where black, Asian and minoritised ethnic groups are at greater risk of severe morbidity and death during pregnancy, childbirth and postnatally than their white counterparts.5 Poor maternal outcomes have been attributed to intersecting factors, including social circumstances, cross-cultural communication barriers and organisational factors, which combine to delay help-seeking, reduce access and negatively impact experiences of care.6 7 Poor communication is a persistent...

‘Knowing what you are doing’ is a simple, but elemental value for any (care) professional. Acknowledging that treatments in healthcare can be inherently harmful, and the practice of medicine often involves weighing one harm (the disease) against the other (the treatment), it is obviously vital to know and understand the effects of medical interventions on humans. However, healthcare is becoming increasingly complex, not in the least due to the abundant body of in-depth knowledge that professionals need to weigh into their decisions for patients. Data science is rapidly changing healthcare as we speak, creating tools such as scores,1 2 benchmarks provided by clinical audits3 and guidelines that alter our clinical strategies. Artificial intelligence and machine learning solutions may be less comprehensible than the information provided by, for example, guidelines, but are revolutionising the world and healthcare at an unstoppable speed.4 The...

Vaccination has led to the control of many infectious diseases, reducing morbidity and mortality, and is estimated by the WHO to save between two and three million lives a year globally.1 Many vaccinations are given in infancy to offer protection against diseases such as measles, polio and meningitis. However, low vaccine uptake is a growing concern and has been linked to outbreaks.2 The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have exacerbated vaccine hesitancy, through a growing mistrust of vaccines.3 During the pandemic, many people could also have been reluctant to access healthcare settings due to fear of infection. Relevant to health inequalities, vaccine uptake is often lower in groups considered underserved, such as those from minority ethnic groups, or higher deprivation.3 4 Interventions are needed to increase vaccination rates to avoid preventable disease.

The study by Rosen et al5...

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a personalised audit and feedback prescribing report (AF) and brief educational summary (ES) on empiric treatment of uncomplicated lower urinary tract infections (UTIs) by family physicians (FPs).

Design

Cluster randomised control trial.

Setting

The intervention was conducted in British Columbia, Canada between 23 September 2021 and 28 March 2022.

Participants

We randomised 5073 FPs into a standard AF and ES intervention arm (n=1691), an ES-only arm (n=1691) and a control arm (n=1691).

Interventions

The AF contained personalised and peer-comparison data on first-line antibiotic prescriptions for women with uncomplicated lower UTI and key therapeutic recommendations. The ES contained detailed, evidence-based UTI management recommendations, incorporated regional antibiotic resistance data and recommended nitrofurantoin as a first-line treatment.

Main outcome measures

Nitrofurantoin as first-line pharmacological treatment for uncomplicated lower UTI, analysed using an intention-to-treat approach.

Results

We identified 21 307 cases of uncomplicated lower UTI among the three trial arms during the study period. The impact of receiving both the AF and ES increased the relative probability of prescribing nitrofurantoin as first-line treatment for uncomplicated lower UTI by 28% (OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.52), relative to the delay arm. This translates to additional prescribing of nitrofurantoin as first-line treatment, instead of alternates, in an additional 8.7 cases of uncomplicated UTI per 100 FPs during the 6-month study period.

Conclusion

AF prescribing data with educational materials can improve primary care prescribing of antibiotics for uncomplicated lower UTI.

Trial registration number

NCT05817253.

Background

Ethnic inequities in maternity care persist in England for Black, African, Caribbean and mixed-Black heritage families, resulting in poorer care experiences and health outcomes than other minoritised ethnic groups. Co-production using an integrated care approach is crucial for reducing these disparities and improving care quality and safety. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the alignment of health and local authority professional perspectives with community needs on how to improve maternity experiences for this ethnic group within a London integrated care system (ICS).

Methods

Between March and June 2024, five workshops were conducted with health professionals, local authorities, voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector and the public from Black, African, Caribbean and mixed-Black heritage backgrounds across the North West London ICS. Using the nominal group technique (NGT), attendees prioritised ideas to improve the experience of maternity care for families from Black, African, Caribbean and mixed-Black heritage backgrounds, which were thematically synthesised using framework analysis.

Results

Fifty-four attendees, covering primary, secondary, regional and national health professionals, public health teams from three local authorities, VCSE sector and the public, generated 89 potential interventions across 11 themes. All attendees prioritised improving staff knowledge and capacity in culturally competent care and communication. Community-identified needs for advocacy mechanisms and mental health support throughout the maternity pathway were not reflected in professional priorities.

Conclusion

The study highlights the need for an integrated, community-centred approach beyond hospital settings when addressing ethnic inequities in maternity care, recognising key differences between community and professional priorities within an ICS. Leveraging lived experience expertise to lead the NGT community workshops was essential in building trust and buy-in of the overall prioritisation process.

Background

Healthcare staff adapt to challenges faced when delivering healthcare by using workarounds. Sometimes, safety standards, the very things used to routinely mitigate risk in healthcare, are the obstacles that staff work around. While workarounds have negative connotations, there is an argument that, in some circumstances, they contribute to the delivery of safe care.

Objectives

In this scoping review, we explore the circumstances and perceived implications of safety standard workarounds (SSWAs) conducted in the delivery of frontline care.

Method

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science for articles reporting on the circumstances and perceived implications of SSWAs in healthcare. Data charting was undertaken by two researchers. A narrative synthesis was developed to produce a summary of findings.

Results

We included 27 papers in the review, which reported on workarounds of 21 safety standards. Over half of the papers (59%) described working around standards related to medicine safety. As medication standards featured frequently in papers, SSWAs were reported to be performed by registered nurses in 67% of papers, doctors in 41% of papers and pharmacists in 19% of papers. Organisational causes were the most prominent reason for workarounds.

Papers reported on the perceived impact of SSWAs for care quality. At times SSWAs were being used to support the delivery of person-centred, timely, efficient and effective care. Implications of SSWAs for safety were diverse. Some papers reported SSWAs had both positive and negative implications for safety simultaneously. SSWAs were reported to be beneficial for patients more often than they were detrimental.

Conclusion

SSWAs are used frequently during the delivery of everyday care, particularly during medication-related processes. These workarounds are often used to balance different risks and, in some circumstances, to achieve safe care.

To improve patient safety, surgeons can continually monitor the surgical outcomes of their patients. To this end, they can use statistical process control tools, which primarily originated in the manufacturing industry and are now widely used in healthcare. These tools belong to a broad family, making it challenging to identify the most suitable methodology to monitor surgical outcomes. The selected tools must balance statistical rigour with surgeon usability, enabling both statistical interpretation of trends over time and comprehensibility for the surgeons, their primary users. On one hand, the observed minus expected (O-E) chart is a simple and intuitive tool that allows surgeons without statistical expertise to view and interpret their activity; however, it may not possess the sophisticated algorithms required to accurately identify important changes in surgical performance. On the other hand, a statistically robust tool like the cumulative sum (CUSUM) method can be helpful but may be too complex for surgeons to interpret and apply in practice without proper statistical training. To address this issue, we developed a new risk-adjusted (RA) O-E CUSUM chart that aims to provide a balanced solution, integrating the visualisation strengths of a user-friendly O-E chart with the statistical interpretation capabilities of a CUSUM chart. With the RA O-E CUSUM chart, surgeons can effectively monitor patients’ outcomes and identify sequences of statistically abnormal changes, indicating either deterioration or improvement in surgical outcomes. They can also quantify potentially preventable or avoidable adverse events during these sequences. Subsequently, surgical teams can try implementing changes to potentially improve their performance and enhance patient safety over time. This paper outlines the methodology for building the tool and provides a concrete example using real surgical data to demonstrate its application.

Previous studies have demonstrated that text message reminders can improve pediatric vaccination rates, including low income & diverse settings such as those served by federally qualified health centers. In this study, we aimed to improve compliance with routine childhood immunizations via a text message intervention in a network of urban, federally qualified health centers at a large academic medical center. We targeted parents or guardians of children aged 0-2 years who were overdue or due within 14 days for at least one routine childhood immunization without a scheduled appointment. In Round 1, two versions of a text were compared to a control (no text). In subsequent Rounds, a new text was compared to a control (no text). In each round the content, wording, and frequency of texts changed. Subjects were randomized to receive a text (treatment group(s)) or to not receive a text (control group) in each round between 2020 and 2022. The primary outcome was whether overdue vaccines had been given by 12 week follow up. The secondary outcome was appointment scheduling within the 72 hours after text messages were sent. In Round 1 (n=1203) no significant differences were found between groups in overdue vaccine administration per group or per patient at follow up, or in appointment scheduling. In Round 2 (n=251) there was no significant difference in vaccine administration per group or per patient. However, significantly more patients in the intervention group scheduled an appointment (9.1% vs. 1.7%, p=0.01). In Round 3 (n=1034), vaccine administration was significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control overall (7.0% vs. 5.5%, 0.016) and per subject (p=0.02). Significantly more patients in the intervention group scheduled an appointment compared to the control (3.3% vs. 1.2%, p=0.02). We found that text messaging can be an effective intervention to promote health service utilization such as pediatric vaccination rates, which although improved in this study, remain low.

The Oxford Professional Practice Handbook of Quality Improvement in Healthcare1 is the latest in a series of books that will be very familiar to readers in the UK and other parts of the world. Many medical students, practicing doctors and other healthcare professionals will have used the various Oxford Handbooks—including books on Clinical Medicine, General Practice, Emergency Medicine and many more. This new book, focusing on quality improvement in healthcare, is both a welcome addition to the series and evidence of the growing recognition of the importance of understanding quality improvement methods alongside our clinical skills.

As with other books in the series, the book is well signposted, with summary tables, diagrams and examples throughout that make it a very practical resource. Each chapter starts with a summary of the key points, which is useful in signposting the reader to what is to follow. Brief examples and...