Category Archives: Clinical governance

Remote consultations

Schedule time, rather than fit in between jobs.

Confidentiality: where you are, where they are! “Are you somewhere private?”

Consent before you proceed. “Are you happy for us to talk just now?” “Can you hear me clearly?”

Contemporaneous notes.  Explain why there may be typing noises during conversation.

Beware if not your usual patient, and long term medication/condition.  Consult with GP or other appropriate professionals.

Prob not appropriate where Safeguarding issues or doubt about mental capacity of adults.

“You may need to justify a decision to consult remotely” – not for your convenience!!!

If speaking with a child, use speaker so parents can hear.

Since you can’t see cues and can’t nod in agreement, good to check understanding and summarise what has been said to you.

Say when you will phone back if you need to discuss with someone else.

Easy to become over focussed on one particular issue and forget to assess more fully.

If becomes emotional, respond by showing you have noticed “It sounds as though you are worried/angry/frustrated about…”.  Apologise if becomes hostile.  Focus on what you can do rather than what you can’t do.  Avoid pre-empting what someone is going to say.

If parents not reassured, or your assessment of the seriousness of the condition differs from theirs, err on the side of caution and arrange a face to face consultation.

For long term conditions, it may be helpful for family to have a list of concerns before hand.

When ordering tests, discuss how these will be fed back – consider whether likely to need face to face follow up to discuss results and treatment options.

Wait until the other party has hung up.

See also Remote consultations – use of images.

Audit

Process of collecting data against a set of standards, in an attempt to improve compliance with those standards. But often ineffective – especially when no changes made (“closing audit loop”) to improve performance. And slow – by the time you’ve collected the data and summarized it, you’ve wasted time that could be been used to improve things you’ve already seen going wrong.

Often just turns into criticism, with intervention being no more than “perform better”. And then just induces resistance.

Cochrane review of audits in general found median 4.3% improvement with compliance, which isn’t much, but potentially more with incremental gains and repeated audit. And potentially scalable. And about a quarter achieve nothing.

Audit chain only as strong as weakest link – awareness of standards, reliability of processes, feedback.  All aspects of programmed should be designed with a focus on desired change in behaviour, and barriers should be anticipated.

Checklist for doing audit well –

  • Can you recommend actions consistent with established goals and priorities
  • Actions that are under audience’s control?
  • Actions that are specific
  • Can you provide multiple data points as feedback ASAP – and as often as frequency allows
  • Individual as well as general feedback if possible
  • Can you provide comparators that reinforce desired behaviour change
  • Format of feedback – link visuals with summary message, multiple methods, minimize distractions.
  • Actionable plan along with feedback
  • Address barriers
  • Short, actionable message with optional detail
  • Realistic goals.
  • Address credibility. 
  • Anticipate defensive reactions
  • Construct feedback through social interaction

Feedback to clinicians, who all think they’re great, requires careful thought.  Trying to improve already high performance may be a waste of effort, there is a ceiling for most things where organisation close to max capacity.

Patients and the public often surprised by the extent of variation.  They express frustration at difficulties in routinely measuring less technical aspects of care, such as consultation skills and patient centredness.  Patients are an untapped force for change which audit could learn to harness.

[ Revitalising audit, BMJ 2020;368:m213]

Medical Error

See Bawa-Garba case.

In a complex system, some errors are unavoidable. Their incidence can be reduced by better system design but they cannot be eliminated.

An error may have been the result of a decision, that could have been made differently, but when people are trying to work in an under-resourced and overstretched system, errors may be difficult to avoid.

Deterrence should therefore not involve criminalisation, but those who can influence the system eg managers and service directors.

Many errors are minor and inconsequential, but James Reason’s Swiss Cheese model highlights how a number of errors can align to enable more serious harm to occur.

In cases of “gross negligence”, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the failures caused the death. Unfortunately, a not guilty verdict may suggest that care was adequate. Prosecutions focus on the individual, not on the wider team or the healthcare system.

Good Practice

  • Families should receive open disclosure and an apology
  • If possible, the harm should be treated as a priority
  • When relevant, compensation should be paid
  • Appropriate mechanisms should be in place to hold to account those responsible for delivery of care
  • Punishment may be appropriate but should be proportionate to the moral culpability of the behaviour, not the outcome of complex clinical problems
  • Responses to problems should be timely – complex systems need repeated and rapid adjustment. Not served well by lengthy investigations.
  • Motivated staff should be afforded the safety of a “just culture”, rather than “no blame” or “who’s the one to blame”.
  • Culture of safety from health minister to most junior

Writing a statement

  • Include full name, qualifications, job title and how long you have been doing it.
  • Don’t assume reader knows anything about the case
  • Use first person
  • Who did what, why, when
  • Concentrate on your observations and your understanding (no need for long quotes of what was said to you, which is what a clinical report would require)
  • Say what you found, but also what you looked for and didn’t find
  • If you’re not exactly sure what you did, and nothing documented, acceptable to say “My normal practice would be…”
  • When you have referred to or discussed with someone else, give their name and who they are, describe what they did on the basis of the notes and your understanding, but don’t comment on the adequacy or otherwise of their performance.

[https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/writing-a-report-for-the-coroner]

Bawa Garba case

High Court ruling regarding Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba following the tragic death of a 6-year-old boy in 2011. Subsequently convicted of manslaughter. Removed from the GMC register, although Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) decision was to suspend for a year.  GMC appealed, saying it had not taken into account the manslaughter conviction.

High Court then overturned erasure, saying that tribunal did not commit any errors in its procedures, and therefore its conclusions were valid.

The trust acknowledged systemic failures, so why the vindictiveness? Its report into the death (“no single error responsible for death”) was not brought before jury, as being beyond scope of the trial! Not lazy or under influence, rather, took on extra duties in overstretched hospital with very little supervision.

And since when was gross negligence manslaughter law the right way to deal with errors made by doctors in training?

Why not corporate manslaughter case against trust?

Concern about reflective notes being used in court – despite being confidential? Used in support of Dr Bawa-Garba to show remediation efforts.

Twitter response from consultants was to emphasise “WE are responsible – so long as you tell us what’s going on”.

Subsequently 2 reviews –

  • Marx review by GMC
  • Williams review by government into medical gross negligence.
    • Suggested that GMC lose right to appeal Tribunal decisions.  Most of these appeals have been regarding sexual misconduct cases.  Professional standards Authority would still be able to appeal.
    • Suggested that GMC not be allowed to access reflective notes eg portfolio.  Could still be used as evidence in prosecution, however, not clear whether would help defence or prosecution more
    • Touched on high rate of cases involving black or minority ethnic doctors, but did nothing other than suggest BAME representation in investigations
    • Recommends explanatory note for gross negligence law, to improve consistency.  Law remains the same, however

Significant Event Analysis

Traditional M&M (mortality and morbidity) meetings – Many errors are not reviewed, and the key protagonists often not present when a case is being discussed; fail to engage affected families. This lack of transparency in the context of the Francis report is at odds with our duty of candour to patients when things go wrong.

Much energy is spent in the NHS concluding whether errors, adverse incidents and deaths are ‘avoidable’ or ‘preventable’.

‘Avoidability’ is an arbitrary conclusion – what matters, surely, is the care that the child received. Professional analysis of the care given reassures parents that their child’s life is of primary importance, and may provide some comfort that their experience will benefit other children.

Root cause analysis (RCA) tracks the origins of an adverse event back to find causes – too simplistic?

cf ‘Safety-II’ approach – focuses on understanding how things usually go right, and only then exploring why things occasionally go wrong.  Rare serious events, although easy to identify, often have complex aetiology, and factors may be difficult to modify. In contrast, “normal” behaviour may be easier to understand and to influence.

Parents’ own questions should inform professional discussion.  Analysis should go beyond identifying what the child died from, to considering why a child died of that condition, in that place,  at that time.

“The investigation of medical error, adverse events and child mortality each requires a distinct approach that revolves around a continuous cycle of reporting, professional scrutiny and follow-through of SMART actions. These processes should separately feed into a properly formatted clinical governance meeting, the purpose of which is to provide assurance to hospital boards and other regulatory bodies that there exists coordinated oversight of risk management, clinical effectiveness, audit and patient experience.”

[James Fraser, Bristol – Arch Dis Child doi:10.1136/archdischild-2015-309536 ]