2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving the working environment for the delivery of safe surgical care in the UK: a qualitative cross-sectional analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The aim of this study was to identify current problems and potential solutions to improve the working environment for the delivery of safe surgical care in the UK.

          Design

          Prospective, questionnaire-based cross-sectional study.

          Setting/participants

          Following validation, an electronic questionnaire was distributed to postgraduate local education and training board distribution lists, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSEd) mailing lists and trainee organisations. This consisted of a single open-ended question inviting five open-ended responses. Throughout the 13-week study period, the survey was also published on a number of social media platforms.

          Results

          A total of 505 responders completed the survey, of which 35% were consultants, 30% foundation doctors, 17% specialty trainees, 11% specialty doctors, 5% core trainees and <1% surgical nurse practitioners. A total of 2238 free-text answers detailed specific actions to improve the working environment. These responses were individually coded and then grouped into nine categories (staff resources, non-staff resources, support, working conditions, communication and team work, systems improvement, patient centred, training and education, and miscellaneous).

          Conclusions

          The results of this study have identified a number of key areas that, if addressed, may improve the environment for the delivery of safer surgical care. Common themes that emerged across all grades included: increased front-line staff; a return to a ‘firm’ structure to improve team continuity; greater senior support; and improved hospital facilities to help staff rest and recuperate. While unlimited funding remains unrealistic, many of the suggestions could be implemented in a cost-neutral fashion and include insightful ideas for remodelling or restructuring the workforce to improve the efficiency of the surgical team. The findings of this study formed the basis of a set of recommendations published by the RCSEd as a discussion paper.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Happiness and Productivity

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Relationship Between Shift Work and Metabolic Risk Factors: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies.

            Although the metabolic health effects of shift work have been extensively studied, a systematic synthesis of the available research is lacking. This review aimed to systematically summarize the available evidence of longitudinal studies linking shift work with metabolic risk factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Surgical adverse events: a systematic review.

              The aim of this systematic review is to quantify potentially preventable patient harm from the frequency, severity, and preventability of the consequences and causes of surgical adverse events to help target patient safety improvement efforts. Two authors independently reviewed articles retrieved from systematic searches of the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature databases for inclusion and exclusion criteria, methodology, and end points. All retrospective record review studies of adverse events were included. The primary end point was the frequency of general surgery adverse events. The secondary end points were the severity and preventability of consequences and causes. Fourteen record review studies incorporating 16,424 surgical patients were included. Adverse events occurred in 14.4% of patients (interquartile range [IQR], 12.5% to 20.1%), and potentially preventable adverse events occurred in 5.2% (IQR, 4.2% to 7.0%). The consequences of 3.6% of adverse events (IQR, 3.1% to 4.4%) were fatal, those of 10.4% (IQR, 8.5% to 12.3%) were severe, those of 34.2% (IQR, 29.2% to 39.2%) were moderate, and those of 52.5% (IQR, 49.8% to 55.3%) were minor. Errors in nonoperative management caused more frequent adverse events than errors in surgical technique. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2019
                24 January 2019
                : 9
                : 1
                : e023476
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentDepartment of Surgery , Homerton University Hospital , London, UK
                [2 ] departmentClinical Surgery , Edinburgh Royal Infirmary , Edinburgh, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Richard J McGregor; Richard.McGregor@ 123456ed.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8371-0010
                Article
                bmjopen-2018-023476
                10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023476
                6347853
                30679292
                0ca45ac7-6a3d-4bed-842f-cf12ac2f8279
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 April 2018
                : 14 October 2018
                : 22 November 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Categories
                Surgery
                Research
                1506
                1737
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                organisation of health services,surgery,qualitative research
                Medicine
                organisation of health services, surgery, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article