Comment EDITOR’S COMMENTwith LOUISE FRAMPTON THE CLINICAL SERVICES JOURNAL Editor


Louise Frampton louiseframpton@stepcomms.com


Technical Editor Kate Woodhead Journal Administration


Katy Cockle katycockle@stepcomms.com


Design Steven Dillon


Business Manager James Scrivens jamesscrivens@stepcomms.com


Sales Executive


Nicola Jardine nicolajardine@stepcomms.com


Publisher Geoff King geoffking@stepcomms.com


Publishing Director Trevor Moon trevormoon@stepcomms.com


STEP COMMUNICATIONS ISSN No. 1478-5641


© Step Communications Ltd, 2023 Single copy: £19.00 per issue. Annual journal subscription: UK £114.00 Overseas: £150.00


The Clinical Services Journal is published in January, February, March, April, May, June, August, September, October and November by Step Communications Ltd, Step House,


North Farm Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent TN2 3DR, UK.


Tel: +44 (0)1892 779999 Email: info@clinicalservicesjournal.com Web: www.clinicalservicesjournal.com


The Publisher is unable to take any responsibility for views


expressed by contributors. Editorial views are not necessarily shared by the journal. Readers are expressly advised that while the contents of this publication are believed to be accurate, correct and complete, no reliance should be placed upon its contents as being applicable to any particular circumstances.


This publication is copyright under the Berne Convention and the International Copyright Convention.


All rights reserved, apart from any copying under the UK


Copyright Act 1956, part 1, section 7. Multiple copies of the contents of the publication without permission is always illegal.


Follow us on twitter: @csjmagazine


Follow the CSJ LinkedIn page. Search Clinical Services Journal


louiseframpton@stepcomms.com Get in touch and give us your views, email me:


March 2023 I www.clinicalservicesjournal.com 5


Putting patient safety first: understanding the challenges


CSJ continues to have a strong focus on patient safety and this latest edition is no exception... We know that the NHS has faced significant challenges in delivering safe, quality care in the


wake of the pandemic, in part due to underinvestment in technology, training and staff, but also due to the increasing backlog and staff burnout. However, there is much within the power of individuals, teams and healthcare leaders to deliver change. In this issue, readers can learn from the HSIB’s latest safety investigation into the lack of


critical patient information at the bedside. There is a deeper dive into the barriers that stop theatre teams complying with the WHO’s Safe Surgery Checklist and discussion of the latest National Safety Standards for Invasive Procedures (NatSSiPs 2). The NHS Patient Safety Strategy (2019) states that: “Patient safety is about maximising the things that go right and minimising the things that go wrong for people experiencing healthcare.” To make this happen, we need to identify and tackle safety issues that arise, but also to identify, celebrate and share what has worked well. It is easy to forget to do the latter. The NHS has tended to be reactive, rather than proactive in anticipating risk, but it also needs to get better at sharing success stories. Learning from ‘exemplars’ is absolutely vital to driving improvement but it is also important for staff to feel good about their contribution, to boost morale and to reflect on how far they have come. It is also important that safety tools, such as NatSSiPs and the Safe Surgery Checklist, do not become ‘tick box’ exercises. This latest edition coincides with the publication of NatSSiPs 2 – so the discussion around safety in the operating theatre in this issue is both timely and topical. Guidelines, standards and checklists are only effective if they are implemented, however. The second round of a Delphi study, which sought the views of surgical teams, has shown


that key steps of the checklist are being skipped – sometimes due to overruns, sometimes due to the culture within the organisation. In the face of unprecedented pressures to tackle the backlog, there may be a temptation


to skip key steps such as the debrief. However, a study by Leonard et al (2022) considered whether the surgical debrief is just another step in the checklist or “an instrument to drive cultural change”. They found that clinicians see the value in a multi-disciplinary surgical debrief – not only to improve patient safety, but “also to positively affect the operating room culture”. The feedback received also suggested that clinicians viewed the debrief as “a method to improve communication across disciplines, influence the power hierarchy that exists in many ORs and thus improve patient safety.” So if there is widespread agreement that the debrief has value, why isn’t it being complied with? We know that the WHO checklist saves lives. Understanding and tackling the barriers to implementation is vital to improving outcomes. The Delphi reports by Nigel Roberts, spanning three editions of CSJ, are very revealing and are a must read for perioperative teams. Some common themes emerge throughout this edition – to drive improvements in patient safety there is a need for better training, effective leadership, a learning culture, and investment in staff and technology. There needs to be a greater understanding of human factors science within the NHS, staff need to feel safe to raise concerns, and we need to learn from mistakes, without a culture of blame. Ultimately, staff want to deliver safe care. There are complex reasons why this is not always


achieved. Some factors require action from the top, but staff can also be empowered. We hope some of the educational articles, featured in this journal, contribute towards that discussion.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64