How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations

Burnett, S., Franklin, B.D., Moorthy, K., Cooke, M.W. and Vincent, C. (2012) How reliable are clinical systems in the UK NHS? A study of seven NHS organisations. BMJ Quality & Safety . 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000442.

Full text available as:

PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial.


DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000442


Background It is well known that many healthcare systems have poor reliability; however, the size and pervasiveness of this problem and its impact has not been systematically established in the UK. The authors studied four clinical systems: clinical information in surgical outpatient clinics, prescribing for hospital inpatients, equipment in theatres, and insertion of peripheral intravenous lines. The aim was to describe the nature, extent and variation in reliability of these four systems in a sample of UK hospitals, and to explore the reasons for poor reliability. Methods Seven UK hospital organisations were involved; each system was studied in three of these. The authors took delivery of the systems' intended outputs to be a proxy for the reliability of the system as a whole. For example, for clinical information, 100% reliability was defined as all patients having an agreed list of clinical information available when needed during their appointment. Systems factors were explored using semi-structured interviews with key informants. Common themes across the systems were identified. Results Overall reliability was found to be between 81% and 87% for the systems studied, with significant variation between organisations for some systems: clinical information in outpatient clinics ranged from 73% to 96%; prescribing for hospital inpatients 82–88%; equipment availability in theatres 63–88%; and availability of equipment for insertion of peripheral intravenous lines 80–88%. One in five reliability failures were associated with perceived threats to patient safety. Common factors causing poor reliability included lack of feedback, lack of standardisation, and issues such as access to information out of working hours. Conclusions Reported reliability was low for the four systems studied, with some common factors behind each. However, this hides significant variation between organisations for some processes, suggesting that some organisations have managed to create more reliable systems. Standardisation of processes would be expected to have significant benefit.

Item Type:Article
Departments, units and centres:Department of Practice and Policy > Department of Practice and Policy
ID Code:3337
Journal or Publication Title:BMJ Quality & Safety
Deposited By:Library Staff
Deposited On:15 Jun 2012 16:43
Last Modified:15 Jun 2012 16:43

Repository Staff Only: Item control page

School of Pharmacy Staff Only: Edit a copy to replace this item