Patients, clinicians and managers all want to be reassured that their healthcare organisation is safe. But there is no consensus about what we mean when we ask whether a healthcare organisation is safe or how this is achieved. In the UK, the measurement of harm, so important in the evolution of patient safety, has been neglected in favour of incident reporting. The use of softer intelligence for monitoring and anticipation of problems receives little mention in official policy. The Francis Inquiry report into patient treatment at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust set out 29 recommendations on measurement, more than on any other topic, and set the measurement of safety an absolute priority for healthcare organisations. The Berwick review found that most healthcare organisations at present have very little capacity to analyse, monitor or learn from safety and quality information. This paper summarises the findings of a more extensive report and proposes a framework which can guide clinical teams and healthcare organisations in the measurement and monitoring of safety and in reviewing progress against safety objectives. The framework has been used so far to promote self-reflection at both board and clinical team level, to stimulate an organisational check or analysis in the gaps of information and to promote discussion of ‘what could we do differently’.

Aim To compare the prevalence and causes of prescribing errors in newly written medication orders and how quickly they were rectified, in three NHS organisations. Methods Errors in newly written inpatient and discharge medication orders were recorded in Spring/Summer 2009 by ward pharmacists on medical admissions and surgical wards, as well as the number of erroneous doses administered (or omitted) before errors were corrected. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the effects of ward (nested within organisation) and clinical specialty, and whether the pharmacist had checked the patient's medication history during data collection. Causes were explored using semistructured interviews with key informants. Results Overall, 1025 prescribing errors were identified in 974 of 6605 medication orders (14.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.8% to 15.6%). A mean of 0.9 doses were administered (or omitted) before each error was corrected (range 0e11), with differences between specialties and organisations. The error rate on medical admissions wards (16.3%) was significantly higher than that on surgical wards (12.2%), but this was accounted for by the higher proportion of prescribing being on admission, where omission of patients' usual medication was often identified. There were significant differences among wards (and organisations). Contributing factors included lack of feedback on errors, poor documentation and communication of prescribing decisions, and lack of information about patients' medication histories from primary care. Conclusions There were variations among wards, organisations and specialties in error rates and how quickly they were rectified. Exploring reasons for differences between organisations may be useful in identifying best practice and potential solutions.

BackgroundHealth systems worldwide are increasingly holding boards of healthcare organisations accountable for the quality of care that they provide. Previous empirical research has found associations between certain board practices and higher quality patient care; however, little is known about how boards govern for quality improvement (QI).MethodsWe conducted fieldwork over a 30-month period in 15 healthcare provider organisations in England as part of a wider evaluation of a board-level organisational development intervention. Our data comprised board member interviews (n=65), board meeting observations (60 hours) and documents (30 sets of board meeting papers, 15 board minutes and 15 Quality Accounts). We analysed the data using a framework developed from existing evidence of links between board practices and quality of care. We mapped the variation in how boards enacted governance of QI and constructed a measure of QI governance maturity. We then compared organisations to identify the characteristics of those with mature QI governance.ResultsWe found that boards with higher levels of maturity in relation to governing for QI had the following characteristics: explicitly prioritising QI; balancing short-term (external) priorities with long-term (internal) investment in QI; using data for QI, not just quality assurance; engaging staff and patients in QI; and encouraging a culture of continuous improvement. These characteristics appeared to be particularly enabled and facilitated by board-level clinical leaders.ConclusionsThis study contributes to a deeper understanding of how boards govern for QI. The identified characteristics of organisations with mature QI governance seemed to be enabled by active clinical leadership. Future research should explore the biographies, identities and work practices of board-level clinical leaders and their role in organisation-wide QI.

This study has presented what principle programme coordinators across 20 NHS organizations considered to be the key strategies to sustain their own improvement programme and its successes, during the supported phase of the programme and 1 year on. Recommendations are to consider these practical strategies in order to improve chances of maintaining changes and continuing a quality improvement programme beyond the formal cessation of the intervention.

No abstract