I agree. Analysis of litigation shows that the vast majority result from (in no particular order)
1.Waiting time
2. Attitudes of staff
3. Misunderstandings
It is incredibly rare (I think I have dealt with 3 or 4 complaints in 5 years) that a complaint is about quality of medical care.
Complaints tell us about people's perception of us, not about how well we do the job, as most people attending an A&E
have little or no idea about the correct treatment for anything. Nor do we, most of the time, but we muddle through.
However, each unit needs a method of deciding whether what it does is of good quality or not. This can be divided into
two areas; internal standard setting and external validation. Audit and revalidation, if you like. Every week we review
critical incidents. Not just trauma calls and cardiac arrests, although we always review these. But we also look at other
issues that matter, such as mis- or unlabelled blood bottles, a bizarre Entonox regulator that found its way into A&E and
medical issues we were unhappy about. An issue that comes up time and time (and time!) again is staff failing to follow
an existing written protocol.
External revalidation is the next step, although we took part in a pilot scheme 4 years ago under the aegis of a system
similar to the Kings' Fund.
Best wishes,
Rowley Cottingham
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|