L Lee1, S Girish, E van den Berg, A Leaf. 1. Neonatal Unit, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK. lleonalee@hotmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Random safety audits have been shown to be effective in improving standards of practice in high-risk industries. They are process audits rapidly performed during real-time clinical activity, with immediate feedback, allowing for immediate change of practice. AIM: Based on a concept described by the Vermont-Oxford Network, we aimed to introduce random safety audits to our unit to improve infection control and routine neonatal care. METHOD: We designed simple data collection tables to audit 11 infection control and four routine care standards. Audits were undertaken during the weekly grand round. Immediate feedback was given. RESULTS: In 6 months we completed three cycles of 15 audits each. Complete results were available for 14 audits. The compliance with the infection control standards improved from a median of 70% (range 20%-100%) to 95% (range 66%-100%). The results of the routine care standards were more variable. CONCLUSION: We have shown that this innovative method of random safety audits is effective in quickly improving practice. We believe this to be due to the instant feedback, continued emphasis on infection control and good clinical practice, and improved teamwork.
BACKGROUND: Random safety audits have been shown to be effective in improving standards of practice in high-risk industries. They are process audits rapidly performed during real-time clinical activity, with immediate feedback, allowing for immediate change of practice. AIM: Based on a concept described by the Vermont-Oxford Network, we aimed to introduce random safety audits to our unit to improve infection control and routine neonatal care. METHOD: We designed simple data collection tables to audit 11 infection control and four routine care standards. Audits were undertaken during the weekly grand round. Immediate feedback was given. RESULTS: In 6 months we completed three cycles of 15 audits each. Complete results were available for 14 audits. The compliance with the infection control standards improved from a median of 70% (range 20%-100%) to 95% (range 66%-100%). The results of the routine care standards were more variable. CONCLUSION: We have shown that this innovative method of random safety audits is effective in quickly improving practice. We believe this to be due to the instant feedback, continued emphasis on infection control and good clinical practice, and improved teamwork.
Authors: M Bodí; M Olona; M C Martín; R Alceaga; J C Rodríguez; E Corral; J M Pérez Villares; G Sirgo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: María Bodí; Iban Oliva; Maria Cruz Martín; Maria Carmen Gilavert; Carlos Muñoz; Montserrat Olona; Gonzalo Sirgo Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2017-02-28 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Elena Bergon-Sendin; Carmen Perez-Grande; David Lora-Pablos; Javier De la Cruz Bertolo; María Teresa Moral-Pumarega; Gerardo Bustos-Lozano; Carmen Rosa Pallas-Alonso Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Elena Bergon-Sendin; Carmen Perez-Grande; David Lora-Pablos; María Teresa Moral-Pumarega; Ana Melgar-Bonis; Carmen Peña-Peloche; Mercedes Diezma-Rodino; Lidia García-San Jose; Esther Cabañes-Alonso; Carmen Rosa Pallas-Alonso Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Mark J Johnson; Alison A Leaf; Freya Pearson; Howard W Clark; Borislav D Dimitrov; Catherine Pope; Carl R May Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-06 Impact factor: 2.692