DOCSLIB.ORG

Assessing Risk by Analysing Significant Events in Primary Care

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Assessing Risk by Analysing Significant Events in Primary Care Qualityin PrimaryCare (2003) 11: 205± 10 # 2003 Radcli¡eMedicalPress Clinical governancein action Assessing risk by analysing signicant events inprimary care Jill MurieMBChB MRCGPDRCOG DFM AssociateAdviser (Clinical Governance/ CPD),Woodstock MedicalCentre, Lanark, Scotland, UK CarolMcGhee RMN RGNMPH RiskManagement Facilitator, Lanarkshire Primary Care NHS Trust, StrathclydeHospital, Scotland, UK ABSTRACT Risk assessment inone local healthcare co- incidents was described as ‘high’in 25%, ‘moder- operative (LHCC)was conductedby applying a ate’in 31% and ‘low’in 44% ofcases. nationalincident grading matrix (CNORIS) to 56 The study demonstrates that GPs canwork signicant eventanalyses (SEAs) undertakenby within anationalframework for risk assessment. 32/39 (82%) generalpractitioners (GPs) as a However,the process identied aneedfor consist- voluntaryand educationalactivity. encyin terms ofde nitions and coding, dedicated Analysisdemonstrated aratio of‘ nearmiss’ to software, amanaged reporting system, practical actual adverse eventof 1:6 and awide rangeand guidance and possibly incentives forGPs. combinationof categories. In40% ofincidents reported, the severity was assessed to be‘major’or ‘catastrophic’. In78% ofincidents, the risk of Keywords:diagnostic errors, generalpractice, recurrencewas considered ‘possible’, ‘likely’or medical errors, medication errors, risk assessment, ‘almost certain’. Risk assessment forrecurrence of risk factors Introduction practice.5 Bythe same token,Royal College of GeneralPractitioners (RCGP) Practice Accreditation has includedcompletion of SEAs as an‘ essential’ Risk management is anessential componentof all criterionin its Scottish pilot. 6 The importance of healthcare systems that wish to maintain their SEAs is reected intheir inclusionin the appraisal functionand protect their users and reputation. and revalidation process forGPs. 7 It is therefore Followingthe creationof the NationalPatient Safety anticipated that at national,local and individual Agency(NPSA), it is proposed generalpractitioners levels,studying adverse events willlead to quality (GPs) willhave to report allincidents inwhich a improvement and proactive risk management in patient was orcouldhave beenseriously harmed. The primary care,whilst averting complaints and claims. NPSAreporting system sets out tenlocal require- Systems forincident grading have beenadopted by ments ‘formanaging, reporting, analysingand NHStrusts complyingwith the nationalstandards learningfrom adverse incidents involvingNHS proposed bythe ClinicalNegligence and Other Risks patients’.1 IndemnityScheme (CNORIS). Launched, inScot- Signicant eventanalysis (SEA) is apowerful land,on 1 April2000 membership ismandatory for learningtool with the potential to improve patient allhealth bodies includingprimary caretrusts care.2 Its applicability to primary carehas been (PCTs).8 While GPs donotsubscribe to the CNORIS demonstrated. 3 However,it is estimated that only scheme, its categorisation forrisk management can around20% ofpractices inthe UKareusing SEAs for beapplied to adverse events and ‘nearmisses’ , which this purpose. 4 occurin primary care. InScotland, the Management Executive has made The aim ofthis workwas to determinewhether, by explicit to NHStrusts that critical eventreporting applying anationalincident grading matrix such as willbe used to monitorand improve existing CNORIS to SEAs, this voluntaryeducational activity 206 JMurie and CMcGhee couldcontribute to risk assessment inone local . severity ofthe outcomeof the signicant event healthcare co-operative (LHCC).The potential uses . likelihoodof recurrenceof the event ofthis process wereto identifybarriers to and . assessment ofrisk ofrecurrence. opportunities forthe development ofan integrated Assessed risk orrisk exposurerating was represented reporting system inprimary care. byasinglenumerical value (range 1 to 25) calculated bymultiplying the severity ofthe outcomeby the likelihoodof recurrence.The risk was thenassessed as Method ‘low’, ‘moderate’or ‘ high’using arisk assessment tableadapted fromthe NPSAmatrix. The frameworkfor clinical governance in primary carein Lanarkshire is provided bythe PCT which developed aprescriptive and incentive-based clinical Results governance‘ pack’for local implementation inall practices betweenOctober 2000 and April2002. The ‘pack’which includedaudit and SEAs was linkedto Inthe 18-month period, 56 SEAs wereundertaken by externalpeer review bythe regionaldepartment of 32/39 (82%) GPs fromall ten practices. GPs in postgraduate medical education, which awarded GPs Clydesdalewere representative ofgeneralpractice as a onepostgraduate educationalsession forthe success- wholein terms ofsex (male64%; female36%). Of the fulcompletion of anSEA. 39 GPs, 37 wereunrestricted principals and two non- Topics foranalysis wereselected entirelyat the principals. Twenty-eight GPs werefull-time and 11 GPs’discretion to ensurethe broadest possible range part-time. Of the sevenGPs who did notcomplete an ofproblems. The West ofScotland Deaneryprovided SEA, six werepart-time (ve female,one male) and astructural frameworkand evaluationschedule for onewas full-time(one male). the satisfactory completionand externalpeer review Excludingone ‘ celebratory’SEA, 55 wereconsid- ofthe SEA providing consistencyand adegree of eredsuitable forcategorisation using the above qualitycontrol (Murray Lough, personalcommun- matrix. The SEAs analyseddemonstrated aratio of ication). Evaluation was judged bythe following: ‘nearmiss’ (8/ 15%) to actual adverse incident(47/ 85%) reporting of1:6. acleardescription ofwhy the eventhappened and its importance to practice life . how the eventhappened Categoriesof risk . lessons learnedas aresult Awide rangeand combinationof categories is shown . changes, if any,implemented, if none,an explana- tionprovided. inTable1. The largest risk categories identied were ‘operational’(44%) and ‘clinical’(36%) with some InLanarkshire, associate advisers forcontinuing risks overlapping incategories, dependent onthe professional development (CPD)were engaged to natureof the incident. ‘Strategic’risks occurredin assist GPs. Inaddition, aclinicalgovernance co- 16% ofcases, the most commonexample involving ordinator visited everypractice within Clydesdale informationmanagement. ‘Humanresources’ (4%), LHCCand collecteddocumentation including copies ‘political’(2%) and ‘legislative’(2%) incidents were ofSEAs throughout the 18-month period. rareand nonewas reported to have had anancial Anexplanatory letter outlining the purpose ofthe cause. study and seekingconsent for inclusion of their analyseswas sent to allGPs inApril 2002. Therewere noobjections. A naldraft ofthe paper was also Severityor impact circulated forapproval. Inalmost halfof cases (47%), the severity ofimpact Two independentresearchers, aGPassociate was considered ‘insignicant’ , i.e. there was no adviser and PCT risk management facilitator cat- injury,no nancialloss and nointerest to the press egorised and coded reports, discussing individual (Table2). Ingeneral, these outcomes resulted ina SEAs untilconsensus was reached. Arandom sample breakdownin the doctor–patient relationship, ine ¤- ofsix (10%) SEAs wereread, categorised and coded ciencyor suboptimal care,for example giving a independentlyby an acknowledged authority inrisk harmless but wrongvaccination. management formerlyemployed by CNORIS. In40% ofincidents reported, the severity or Codes werebased onestablished criteria forrisk impact was assessed to be‘ major’or ‘ catastrophic’, analysis: forexample, preventable death fromdrug misuse and . risk categories dissecting aortic aneurysm.Severe disability arising Assessingrisk by analysing signi®cant events 207 Table 1 Riskcategories Risk category n (%) Examples (n = 55) Humanresources 2 (4) Sta¡ dismissal (irregularleave) Inadequate training (limited knowledge) Strategic 9(16) Failureof emergencyplanning Unsafe out-of-hours service Operational 24 (44) Breachof security and condentiality of patient information Inadequate systems forreporting results, repeat prescribing and referral Dispensing errors, immunisation errors Political 1 (2) Ine¡ective jointworking with local authority Restrictive cross-boundarypolicies Legislative 1(2) Inadequate procedures forcontrolled drugs Majorchange 0 (0) Financial 0 (0) Clinical 20 (36) Delayeddiagnosis, diagnostic error,delayed treatment, medication error Breakdownin doctor– patient relationship Anaphylaxis Environmental 3(5) Patient absconds fromhospital undetected Project 0 (0) Combination,e.g. Operational/clinical 2(4) Haemorrhagic complications ofwarfarin arising frominadequate monitoring Strategic/political/environmental 1(2) Inclementweather isolates hospital from services Environmental/human resource 1(2) Practice design, security and safety ofsta ¡ Table 2 Severityof the outcomeof the signi®cant event Impact n (%) Impact (n = 55) Insignicant 26 (47) Noobvious harm/injury,e.g. wrongvaccine Minor 5 (9) First aid treatment required Moderate 2 (4) Medical treatment required Major 10 (18) Disabling injury,e.g. missed ectopic pregnancy,blindness Catastrophic 12 (22) Death fromdrug misuse, aortic aneurysm,pressure sores 208 JMurie and CMcGhee fromthe haemorrhagic complications ofanti- is perhaps inevitable.The combinationof factors coagulationresulted invisual loss, subdural haemor- made apparent byundertaking the analysis indicates rhage and carpal tunnelsyndrome. aneedfor a moredetailed taxonomyof categor- isation ofrisks ingeneral practice, such as that proposed byMakeham
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From the Factory to the Frontlines the Operation Warp Speed Strategy for Distributing a COVID-19 Vaccine
    From the Factory to the Frontlines The Operation Warp Speed Strategy for Distributing a COVID-19 Vaccine What This Strategy Aims to Do This report to Congress details a strategy to achieve the principal purpose and objective of Operation Warp Speed (OWS): ensuring that every American who wants to receive a COVID-19 vaccine can receive one, by delivering safe and effective vaccine doses to the American people beginning January 2021. The leadership of OWS has committed to being transparent with Congress, the media, and the American people. OWS has provided regular briefings on topics of interest to Congress and the media and will continue to provide updates and announcements as OWS reaches new milestones. Congress has been a vital partner in the all-of-America response to the COVID-19 pandemic. With support provided through emergency supplemental and flexible discretionary funding, OWS has now made strong progress toward a safe and effective COVID-19 vaccine, with multiple candidates in Phase 3 clinical trials. Simultaneously, OWS and partners are developing a plan for delivering a safe and effective product to Americans as quickly and reliably as possible. Experts from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are leading vaccine development, while experts from the Department of Defense (DoD) are partnering with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other parts of HHS to coordinate supply, production, and distribution of vaccines. Successful implementation of the national COVID-19 vaccination program requires precise coordination across federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments and among many public and private partners.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intended and Unintended Outcomes of New Governance Arrangements Within the NHS
    SDO Project (08/1618/129) The intended and unintended outcomes of new governance arrangements within the NHS Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme March 2010 Professor John Storey, The Open University Business School Dr Richard Holti, The Open University Business School Dr Nik Winchester, The Open University Business School Professor Rod Green, Department of Management, The University of Bath Professor Graeme Salaman, The Open University Business School Professor Paul Bate, University College, London ____________________________________ Project Lead: Professor John Storey, Open University Business School Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA E-mail: [email protected] © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2010 1 SDO Project (08/1618/129) Contents Acknowledgements ....................................................5 Executive Summary....................................................6 Background ..............................................................................6 Aims........................................................................................6 About this study ........................................................................7 Key findings..............................................................................7 Conclusions ..............................................................................9 PART 1: POSITIONING THE STUDY...........................11 1 Introduction and background...........................11 1.1 The governance and
    [Show full text]
  • List of Eligible Applicants and Estimated Funding Award Amounts by Category
    Attachm nt A OOOTTT222111 ––– 222111 333::: NNNatatatiiiooonnnalalal IIInnniiitttiiiatatatiiivvveee tttooo AAAddddddrrreeessssss CCCOOOVVVIIIDDD---111999 HHHeeealalalttthhh DDDiiissspppararariiitttiiieeesss amamamooonnnggg PPPooopppuuulllatatatiiiooonnnsss atatat HHHiiiggghhh---RRRiiissskkk anananddd UUUnnndddeeerrrssseeerrrvvveeeddd,,, IIInnncccllluuudddiiinnnggg RRRacacaciiialalal anananddd EEEttthhhnnniiiccc MMMiiinnnooorrriiitttyyy PPPooopppuuulllatatatiiiooonnnsss anananddd RRRuuurrralalal CCCooommmmmmuuunnniiitttiiieeesss List of Eligible Applicants and Estimated Funding Award Amounts by Category State Estimated Awards Award ange $17,000,000 - $50,000,000 Award Average $32,000,000 Eligible Applicants Alabama D partm nt of Public H alth (ADPH) Alaska D partm nt of H alth and Social S rvic s - Division of Public H alth Arizona D partm nt of H alth S rvic s Arkansas D partm nt of H alth California D partm nt of Public H alth Colorado D partm nt of Public H alth and Environm nt Conn cticut D partm nt of Public H alth D lawar D partm nt of H alth and Social S rvic s- Division of Public H alth Florida D partm nt of H alth G orgia D partm nt of Public H alth Hawaii Stat D partm nt of H alth Idaho D partm nt of H alth and W lfar Illinois D partm nt of Public H alth Indiana D partm nt of H alth Iowa D partm nt of Public H alth Kansas D partm nt of H alth & Environm nt K ntucky D partm nt for Public H alth Louisiana D partm nt of H alth Main D partm nt of H alth and Human S rvic s Maryland D partm nt of H alth Massachus tts D partm nt of Public
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 State Profile — Palau
    2011 State Profile — Palau National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) The National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (N-SSATS) is an annual survey of facilities providing substance abuse treatment. It is conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). N-SSATS is designed to collect data on the location, characteristics, services offered, and number of clients in treatment at alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities (both public and private) throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and other U.S. jurisdictions. More information on N-SSATS methodology is available at the following URL: http://www.samhsa.gov/data/2k3/NSSATS/NSSATS.pdf In Palau, 1 substance abuse treatment facility was included in the 2011 N-SSATS, reporting that there were 105 clients in substance abuse treatment on March 31, 2011. The survey response rate in Palau was 100.0%. Facility Operation Clients in Treatment on March 31, 2011 Facilities All Clients Clients Under Age 18 No. % No. % No. % Private non-profit 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Private for-profit 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Local, county, or community government 1 100.0 105 100.0 10 100.0 State government 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Federal government 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Dept. of Veterans Affairs 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Dept. of Defense 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Indian Health Service 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Tribal government 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 1 100.0 105 100.0 10 100.0 Primary Focus of Facility Clients in Treatment on March 31, 2011 Facilities All Clients Clients Under Age 18 No.
    [Show full text]
  • Deputy Health Officer
    County of Monterey 14K54 DEPUTY HEALTH OFFICER DEFINITION Under general direction of the Health Officer, assists the Health Officer in the administration and medical oversight of public health programs for the County; provides health policy consultation on health and preventative medicine issues to the Health Officer, department staff, citizens, public officials, community organizations, agencies and staff; in the absence of the Health Officer, serves as the designated County Health Officer; and performs other related work as required DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS This single position management level class is responsible to the Health Officer for assisting in providing medical oversight, consultation and/or enforcement of public health regulations for a variety of public health programs and services, including environmental health, vital records, communicable disease control, preventative chronic and acute general medical services, public health nursing, emergency and disaster medical planning, public health education, California Children’s Service, and maternal and child health services. This position provides principal supervision of Vital Records, Health Assessment, Laboratory, and Epidemiology programs. This position is distinguished from the Health Officer in that the Health Officer is appointed by the County Board of Supervisors, directs medical oversight and policy for the County, and possesses the powers, duties, and responsibilities relating to the preservation and protection of public health. The Deputy Health Officer assists in directing the medical oversight and policy for the County, and does not carry full powers, duties and responsibilities relating to public health, but may act in the absence of the Health Officer. The Deputy Health Officer is distinguished from lower level management or physician classes in that the latter directs specific areas of program responsibility or medical practice, whereas the Deputy Health Officer assists in directing the medical oversight for all public health programs EXAMPLES OF DUTIES 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Audit/Quality Improvement Projects Guidance for Professional
    Clinical Audit/Quality Improvement Projects Guidance For Professional Competence Scheme Prepared by Faculty of Public Health Medicine December 2012 1 KEY POINTS ON AUDIT FOR PUBLIC HEALTH . This document is produced by the Faculty of Public Health Medicine Ireland (FPHMI) to support and guide participants of the FPHMI Professional Competence Scheme (PCS) to achieve their requirement of completing one clinical audit / quality improvement project each year. This document is a guide for doctors practising public health medicine and who are either on the Specialist or General Division of the Register . All doctors must participate in professional competence . Each doctor must define his/her scope of practice . All doctors whose practice include both clinical and non‐clinical work should engage in both clinical audit and other quality improvement practices relevant to their scope of practice . Audit can be at individual, team, departmental or national level . Each doctor must actively engage in clinical audit / systematic quality improvement activity that relates directly to their practice. ‘The Medical Council’s Framework for Maintenance of Professional Competence Activities’ sets one clinical audit per year as the minimum target. The time spent on completing the audit is accounted for separately from other Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activities. It is estimated that the completion of one clinical audit will take approximately 12 hours of activity. The main challenges in undertaking audit in public health practice include o Lack of explicit criteria against which to measure audit o Timeframes for measuring outcomes which can be prolonged and thus process measures are more readily measured Can’t seem to format this box which is smaller than the text o Changing public health work programmes in Departments .
    [Show full text]
  • The High Achieving Governmental Health Department in 2020 As the Community Chief Health Strategist
    The High Achieving Governmental Health Department in 2020 as the Community Chief Health Strategist Public Health Leadership Forum This paper was prepared by RESOLVE as part of the Public Health Leadership Forum with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. John Auerbach, Director of Northeastern University’s Institute on Urban Health Research, also put substantial time and effort into authoring the document with our staff. The concepts put forth are based on several working group session (See Appendix B for members) and are not attributable to any one participant or his/her organization. May 2014 The High Achieving Governmental Health Department in 2020 as the Community Chief Health Strategist Public Health Leadership Forum Background Local and state health departments need to adapt and evolve if governmental public health is to address emerging health demands, minimize current as well as looming pitfalls, and take advantage of new and promising opportunities. To succeed requires a view into the future. This paper provides that vision. And, importantly, it zeroes in on what a high achieving public health department of the future will be doing differently. It does so not with a comprehensive inventory of tasks but rather with a distillation of the most important new skills and activities essential to be high achieving and serve in the role of the community chief health strategist. A working group of public health practitioners and policy experts was convened by RESOLVE as part of the Public Health Leadership Forum with funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (See Appendix B for a list of members). The working group purposely set a time frame of public health in 2020 – just six years into the future – in order to look far enough ahead to provide a compelling beacon, while staying close enough to the present to emphasize the urgency of taking immediate steps to start the process of change and build the leadership necessary to be successful.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Governance: the Next Hype?
    Maltese Medical Journal, 2000; 12(1,2): 31 31 All rights reserved Clinical Governance: the next hype? Marie-Klaire Farrugia * *Senior House Officer, Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Correspondence: Dr M K Farrugia, E-mail: [email protected] Introduction Evidence Based Practice The recent wave of strategies geared at improving the Evidence Based Practice is about basing one's quality of the NHS and combating medicolegal actions practice on the best accepted evidence to date. This in the UK has resulted in the accumulation of a number requires a basic infrastructure which will provide this of hyped-up terms, the latest of which is Clinical continuously-updated information. It entails information Governance. Clinical Governance is to be the main technology which will enable access to specialist vehicle for continuously improving the quality of databases such as the Cochrane Collaboration (www. patient care and developing the capacity to maintain cochrane.co.uk) and facilitated access to updated high standards. libraries4. As from June 1999, the British Health Act has placed a duty on each primary care trust and each NHS trust to Audit make arrangements for the purpose of monitoring and improving the quality of healthcare provided to patients. Assessing whether one's practice is actually up to the A recent update of the NHS Plan (www.nhs.uk! required standard relies on audit. All clinicians in the nationalplan/nhsplan.htm), published in July 2000, UK are now expected to participate in audit programs, explains how this move is to be governed by the and there is greater emphasis on evidence-based National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) ­ practice and adherence to national frameworks and www.nice.org.uk - which will set standards and recommendations made by the NICE.
    [Show full text]
  • VDH (VBDPH) Mandated Services
    VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (VDH) SUMMARY OF MANDATES REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW, STATE LAW, CONTRACT OR INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT Revised for Virginia Beach Department of Public Health March 2017 Note: The majority of Public Health Laws in the State of Virginia are found in Title 32 in the State Legislative Information System. Specific chapters of the law are referenced in the table below. 1. OVERARCHING AGENCY MISSION, CONTEXT AND STRUCTURE Mandated Service or Authority (and Obligating Description of Mandate or Authorizing Text Activity Instrument, if any): Establishment of the §§ 32.1-2, 32.1-16 There shall be a State Board of Health and a State Department of State Board of Health Health in the executive department responsible to the Secretary of and the State Health and Human Resources. Department of Health Purpose of the Board §32.1-2 The General Assembly finds that the protection, improvement and and Department preservation of the public health and of the environment are essential to the general welfare of the citizens of the Commonwealth. For this reason, the State Board of Health and the State Health Commissioner, assisted by the State Department of Health, shall administer and provide a comprehensive program of preventive, curative, restorative and environmental health services, educate the citizenry in health and environmental matters, develop and implement health resource plans, collect and preserve vital records and health statistics, assist in research, and abate hazards and nuisances to the health and to the environment, both emergency and otherwise, thereby improving the quality of life in the Commonwealth. Development of §32.1-11 The Board may formulate a program of environmental health, Programs laboratory services, and preventive, curative and restorative medical care services, including home and clinic health services.
    [Show full text]
  • GOVERNING MEDICINE Theory and Practice EDITED by Andrew Gray & Stephen Harrison G “Gray and Harrison Have Assembled an Impressive Array of Authors to Analyse The
    GOVERNING MEDICINE Theory and Practice EDITED BY Andrew Gray & Stephen Harrison G “Gray and Harrison have assembled an impressive array of authors to analyse the changing role of the medical profession. The contributions range from historical OVERNING analyses of the relationship between government and doctors, to detailed examination of the implementation of clinical governance in the NHS. All offer important insights into an issue that lies at the heart of contemporary debates in health policy.” CHRIS HAM, PROFESSOR OF HEALTH POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM This book brings together a range of detailed explorations of the theory, practice and prospects of clinical governance by some of the most eminent practitioners and researchers in the United Kingdom. Since New Labour’s institution of clinical governance through its White Paper in 1997, there has been a good deal of M debate about the history, theory and practice of clinical governance and the governance of clinical care. EDICINE Divided into three parts, the book focuses on the core areas of: N Medicine, Autonomy and Governance N Evidence, Science and Medicine N Realizing Clinical Governance Starting with the differing definitions of the term clinical governance, the contributors discuss the relationship of medicine and governance, the challenges that evidence-based medicine makes upon clinical practice and move on to suggest possible futures for clinical governance. Written by a team of experienced academics and practitioners, this book is aimed at reflective health professionals, as well as students and academics in the fields of health policy, health services management, social policy and public policy. Gray & Harrison Cover design Hybert Design GOVERNING Andrew Gray is Emeritus Professor of Public Sector Management and Visiting Professorial Fellow at the Centre for Clinical Management at the University of Durham.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Task Force Report 2015 6-29 2
    June 2015 Task Force on Behavioral Health Data Policies and Long Term Stays Final Report to the Health Policy Commission, the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, and the Joint Committee on Health Care Financing, as Required in Section 230 of Chapter 165 of the Acts of 2014 CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 2 I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 II. Recommendations to Improve the Collection, Sharing, and Reporting of Behavioral Health Data ...... 7 III. Recommendations to Reduce Long Term Stays ...................................................................................... 11 A. Emergency Department .............................................................................................................. 12 B. Inpatient Psychiatric Units .......................................................................................................... 20 C. DMH Continuing Care Facilities ................................................................................................. 21 D. Outpatient Behavioral Health System ......................................................................................... 22 E. Financing the Behavioral Health System .................................................................................... 24 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Governance Principles for Pharmacy Services 2018
    Clinical Governance Principles for Pharmacy Services 2018 PSA Australia’s peak body for pharmacists © Pharmaceutical Society of Australia 2018 This publication contains material that has been provided by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA), and may contain material provided by the Commonwealth and third parties. Copyright in material provided by the Commonwealth or third parties belong to them. PSA owns the copyright in the publication as a whole and all material in the guide that has been developed by PSA. In relation to PSA owned material, no part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), or the written permission of PSA. Requests and inquiries regarding permission to use PSA material should be addressed to: Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, PO Box 42, Deakin West ACT 2600. Where you would like to use material that has been provided by the Commonwealth or third parties, contact them directly. The development of the Clinical Governance Principles for Pharmacy Services has been funded by the Australian Government Department of Health. This work has been informed by experts, consultation and stakeholder feedback. The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) thanks all those involved in the development of this document and in particular, gratefully acknowledges the feedback and input received from the following organisations: • Australian Government Department of Health • Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care • The Society of Hospital Pharmacists
    [Show full text]