Clinicians Toolkit NSW Health

The Clinician’s Toolkit
F O R I M P R O V I N G P A T I E N T C A R E
F I R S T E D I T I O N

NSW HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Locked Mail Bag 961
North Sydney NSW 2059
Tel. (02) 9391 9000
Fax.(02) 9391 9101
This work is copyright. It may be reproduced in whole or in part
for study training purposes subject to the inclusion of an
acknowledgement of the source and no commercial usage or sale.
© NSW Health Department 2001
SHPN: (HPA) 010183
ISBN: 0 7347 3352 0
For further copies:
Better Health Centre
Locked Mail Bag 5003
Gladesville NSW 2111
Tel. (02) 9816 0452
Fax. (02) 9816 0492
A full copy of this report and others in this series
can be downloaded from the NSW Health Web site:
www.health.nsw.gov.au
November 2001

Foreword
Quality in health care has received significant impetus
in recent years, initiated by the concerns expressed not
only by clinicians, but also by consumers and the
press. In NSW the Minister of Health has established
the NSW Council on Quality in Health Care to
provide advice on and to address these concerns.
One initiative of this Council, in conjunction with
the Committee of College Chairmen and the Quality
Branch of New South Wales Health, has been this
Clinician’s Toolkit.
All doctors must undertake some form of peer review
and continuing medical education and it is now a
condition of registration by the Medical Board of
New South Wales.The Colleges supervise this
education and have in place different programmes
to suit their Fellows requirements.
The aim of this booklet is to provide clinicians with
information about the tools available to review and
improve the quality of their practice and how to
report the findings of any review. Not all tools will
be appropriate for all clinicians, or all types of practice.
We would emphasise that this Toolkit is intended as
an educational document, aimed at informing
clinicians about the variety of instruments which
they can employ to improve their practice. However,
Area Health Services will be required to ensure that
clinicians actively participate in the processes described
in this Toolkit, where it is appropriate to do so.All the
recognised Medical Colleges have had the opportunity
to review, and frequently to make substantial
alterations to, the text of this booklet. It is a
collaborative effort.
We would commend The Clinician’s Toolkit for
Improving Patient Care to you as a valuable resource.
Michael Hollands
Chairman
Committee of Chairmen of NSW State Committees
of Medical Colleges
Michael Reid
Director-General
NSW Department of Health
NSW Health The Clinician’s Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care i

The Clinician’s Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care NSW Healthii

NSW Health The Clinician’s Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care iii
Section 1
Introduction..............................................................1
Section 2
Methods for providing information
on the quality of clinical care ....................................3
1. Facilitated incident monitoring ............................4
2. Sentinel event management..................................6
3. The effective use of clinical indicators..................8
4. Peer review meetings .........................................10
5. Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms).......12
6. Ad hoc audits/reviews........................................13
7. Retrospective chart review.................................15
Section 3
Clinical Practice Improvement Method –
The Next Step........................................................17
Section 4
Aids to clinical improvement...................................19
Qualified privilege .............................................19
Credentialling and clinical privileges ..................20
Clinical supervision............................................20
The effective use of complaints ..........................22
Section 5
Definitions ..............................................................23
Bibliography............................................................24
Appendices ........................................................27-30
Appendix 1
Clinical practice improvement model .................27
Appendix 2
Clinical indicator report template.......................29
Appendix 3
Peer review meeting report template..................30
Endnotes.................................................................33
Acknowledgments...................................................35
Contents

The Clinician’s Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care NSW Healthiv

NSW Health The Clinician’s Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care 1
All clinicians need to be vigilant to ensure they are
providing the best possible care for their patients.
The advances that have taken place in scientific
understanding, therapeutics and technology in the last
twenty years have been extraordinary.These changes
undoubtedly result in better care, but there is a danger
that these improvements may be undermined by
preventable human and system failures. Clinicians
need to pay attention to the every-day and the
mundane as well as to the new and interesting aspects
of clinical care.They need to apply methods that
measure, analyse and deliver effective responses to all
deficient aspects of the care given to their patients.
There are three key components of clinician action
required to improve the quality of care they provide.
The first of these components requires a better
understanding by clinicians, of the ‘human factors’
of work. Human factors research is the scientific study
of how humans perform in the workplace, both
individually and in teams. Good performance of tasks
at work is determined by factors within individuals
and factors inherent in the system in which those
individuals work.A better understanding of those
factors is applied to better design of work systems and
environments and an ongoing systematic process for
reducing human error and improving reliability and
safety.1
It is essential that health care practitioners and
students are trained in dealing with error and adapting
the systems of care in order that the risk of error is
minimised. Many clinicians still believe that humans
are ‘perfectible’ and that the ‘blame and train’ approach
is the optimal route to improving patient care.2
This is
no longer an acceptable approach to human error.3
Further information on this component of health care
quality improvement can be found in Lessons for
Health Care:Applied Human Factors Research. Report of a
Special Medical Seminar.4
The second of these key components can be achieved
by engaging in activities such as incident monitoring,
the effective use of clinical indicators and peer review
for example, to identify the problems associated
with clinical care. Such activities, if conducted in
an open, just and non-punitive environment, can be
very effective.
There are many different approaches that clinicians
can use to achieve this.This Toolkit presents, in Section
2, the recognised techniques, but emphasises that no
one method is complete in itself. Clinicians in each
discipline need to choose, implement and maintain a
number of these to adequately fulfil their commitment
to improve patient care.
The third key component of quality improvement
requires clinicians to act, in a scientific way, upon the
data and information gleaned from the previous
activities, in order that care is continually improved.
Section 3 of this Toolkit provides an overview of the
proven scientific method that is recommended for use
by clinicians and managers for improving care.
1Introduction
1. Developing the knowledge and skills for
understanding human performance, the systems of
care and for minimising and dealing with error.
2. The application of methods to identify, measure and
analyse problems with care delivery.
3. Action upon that information to improve both the
individual and the systemic aspects of care delivery.
The purpose of this Toolkit is therefore, to provide
clinicians with a guide about the various strategies
that are available to them for identifying problems
with systems of care and with an individual clinician’s
practice, and to give clinicians an overview of the
‘pragmatic’ scientific methodology that can be used
to act upon the information that those methods
provide, in order that care is continually improved.

The Clinician’s Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care NSW Health2
Clinical Governance is defined as “the framework
through which health organisations are accountable for
continuously improving the quality of their services and
safeguarding high standards of care by creating an environment
in which excellence in clinical care will flourish”.5
The concept of clinical governance was formalised in
the NSW health system in February 1999 with the
introduction of The Framework for Managing the Quality
of Health Services in NSW (the Quality Framework).
The concept of clinical governance in NSW is
therefore relatively new; the practice of clinical
governance, however, is not. In the NSW health
system, clinical governance has two main elements:
1. Area Boards (through the Area’s CEO and
managers) having a responsibility for the standards
of care delivered in the Area and for providing the
structures and environment in which the delivery
of high quality care can be facilitated, and
2. Clinicians being enabled to accept responsibility
not only for the quality of their individual clinical
performance, but more significantly for the
performance of systems established by the Area
Health Service.
The successful implementation of clinical governance
requires the development of strong partnerships
between clinicians and managers for the safe and
appropriate provision of health care. Effective clinical
governance will require both clinicians and managers
to work together to develop an Area Health Service
wide plan that focuses on the components of this
Toolkit.The implementation of this plan should be
overseen by the Area Quality Council.
NSW Health is committed to the continuous
implementation and improvement of the Quality
Framework, which provides the structure for Area
Health Services and clinicians to effectively govern
the quality of care, and ensure that clinical care is safe,
effective, appropriate, consumer focussed, accessible
and efficient.6
Use of the several different methods
described in this Toolkit provide the practical means
by which the NSW Quality Framework can be
implemented at the clinical level.
This Toolkit is to be a companion document to
The Framework for Managing the Quality of Health
Services in NSW.
Introduction

This section of the Toolkit describes the activities that
should be undertaken by clinicians to gather
information about the quality of clinical care they
provide to patients. It is not an exhaustive list but it
includes the most common activities undertaken by
clinicians.These activities have developed in an hoc
fashion over many years and there is a degree of
overlap in their application.
These activities inherently provide information about
the quality of care being delivered, but do not compel
clinicians to act on that information to improve the
quality of that care in the clinical setting. Section 3 of
this Toolkit describes the steps that must then be taken
to improve care.
The activities described in this Toolkit are:
1. Facilitated incident monitoring
2. Sentinel event management
3. The effective use of clinical indicators
4. Peer review meetings
5. Morbidity and mortality meetings
6. Ad hoc audits/reviews
7. Retrospective chart audit
This Toolkit has attempted to synthesise the evidence
available on each of these activities in order to provide
a better practice guide for each.The bibliography
contained in Section 5 provides further information
on each of the activities described.
The activities described in this section should be used
in the following context:
• Whenever possible, a multidisciplinary approach
should be taken in applying concepts and strategies.
• The processes undertaken by clinicians in applying
the concepts in this Toolkit must be transparent
and accountable not only to other clinicians but
also to health service managers and patients.
• Clinicians should be encouraged to use
de-identified information to ensure
confidentiality of the patient and the clinician
and to enable open and frank discussions of the
issues raised around specific events.
• Evaluation or criticisms of events should look
at system issues in the first instance, rather
than seeking to blame the individual for errors
or perceived errors that may have occurred.
• Involvement of junior staff and students should
be facilitated and supported.
2Methods for providing information
on the quality of clinical care

Introduction
Research studies7
have validated an epidemic of
grossly under reported, preventable injuries due to
medical management. Recent policy documents have
placed high priority on improving incident reporting
as the first step in addressing patient injuries, and have
called for translation of lessons from other high risk
industries.8
Complex non-medical industries have
evolved incident reporting systems that focus on near
misses, provide incentives for voluntary reporting,
ensure confidentiality (as distinct from anonymity) and
emphasise perspectives of systems in data collection,
analysis and improvement.
Definitions
An incident is an unplanned event resulting in or
having the potential for injury, ill health, damage or
other loss.9
Any event that could have had adverse
consequences but did not, and is indistinguishable
from fully fledged adverse events in all but outcome10
should also be considered to be an incident.These are
known as ‘near misses’.
Incident monitoring is a system for identifying,
processing, analysing and reporting incidents with a
view to preventing their recurrence.11
The process of incident monitoring has, in the past,
been criticised because of the limited ability it has to
identify the systemic problems underlying adverse event
occurrence. Some important categories of incidents are
unlikely to be identified using this system (eg. incidents
involving errors of omission rather than comission)
unless the process for identification is facilitated.
Incident monitoring has also been criticised for its
unidisciplinary nature, having become the domain of
nursing staff. If incident monitoring and management is
to be effective, it must be team based, multidisciplinary
and involve both senior and junior staff.
Effective incident monitoring is also dependent on a
commitment to act upon the information that arises
from the process for improvements in the systems of
care.This also involves the reporting of incidents or
processes that require action at the facility level. Such
action is the responsibility of the peak quality of care
committee in that facility.
Facilitated incident monitoring is the use of
current incident reporting mechanisms, enhanced by
the opportunistic identification of a greater range of
incidents than can be expected from the current
voluntary methodology.
Objective
The objective of facilitated incident monitoring is to
strengthen the current incident reporting system, to
facilitate the identification of a greater proportion of
incidents that occur in clinical practice and to act
upon the information derived from these reports to
improve care.
Method
1. Each clinical team or ward-based unit will identify
an appropriate time to discuss the incidents
occurring in their clinical area in the previous
time period, eg. the past week.This should not
be a separate ‘incident meeting’ but should instead
be the ‘normal’ clinical team meeting.
2. The team will take those incidents which have
been voluntarily reported using the current
reporting forms and add to them any other
incidents identified by asking a set of
(approximately eight) appropriate questions.
The questions should be based on local knowledge
of incidents which could occur in that clinical
setting and should be based on the six dimensions
of quality: safety, effectiveness, appropriateness,
consumer participation, access and efficiency.12
The questions will be different for each clinical
team and the incidents being considered.
Methods for providing information on the quality of clinical care
1 Facilitated incident monitoring

For example an acute clinical care team may ask
the following questions. “In the past week, have there
been...
• any drug errors?
• any intravenous line infections?
• any unanticipated admissions to ICU?
• any falls?
• any wound infections?
• non-compliance with (identified) guidelines?
• inappropriate admissions/treatments?
• unreported results?
• reports not acted upon in a timely fashion?
• delayed, premature or inadequate
discharges/transfers?
• complaints?
• any pressure ulcers? or
• any gaps in care?”
A community care team would ask a different set
of questions more relevant to their practices and
expected incidents.
Such incidents should be identified prior to the
ward/team meeting and an appropriate person
nominated to follow up on the relevant details of
the incident prior to discussion at the meeting.
3. The facts about the incidents should be presented
by a team member and discussed:
• Patient and provider information should, when
possible, be de-identified
• Discussion should be robust, but the approach
should always be educational rather than
fault-finding
• Discussion should be focussed around identifying
the system issues in the care delivered.
4. To assist the discussions the following questions
should then be asked.
• What did we do or what did we forget to do
that contributed to these incidents? (It should
be recognised that errors of omission are far
more common than errors of commission.)
• What needs to be done at this level to prevent
this incident from occurring again?
• Who is responsible for follow-up action?
• Who else needs to know about this? For
example, does it need to be reported to the
facility’s quality committee, either for action
or information?
5. Possible actions/outcomes:
• If insufficient information is available regarding
an incident, a person should be assigned to
follow up and re-present the issue at the
following meeting.
• If a deficiency in the system is identified, any
of the following may be appropriate:
– a new or revised practice
– a new or revised protocol
– improved lines of communication.
• If there are concerns about an event in another
department/grouping
– a letter could be written
– a meeting could be arranged
• If a broader system/facility issue is identified it
should be reported to the facility’s peak quality
committee.
In conclusion
Facilitated incident monitoring should be a continuous,
ongoing fundamental activity for every clinician and
clinical team. Incidents and near misses will always
occur. Non-punitive, voluntary incident reporting
systems in high risk non-medical domains have grown
to produce large amounts of essential process
information that is unobtainable by other means.
Health care professionals need also to report and
examine incidents and near misses in the same way.

Definition
“A sentinel event is an unexpected occurrence involving
death or serious physical or psychological injury and includes
any process variation for which a recurrence would carry a
significant chance of a serious adverse outcome.”14
A sentinel event can be further defined as an event
that happens rarely or one which represents an adverse
event of such significance that it warrants individual
investigation. Such events are called ‘sentinel’ because
they signal the need for investigation and response.
Objectives
The objectives of sentinel event monitoring are to:
1. Have a positive impact in improving patient care.
2. Focus the attention of a team/facility that has
experienced a sentinel event on understanding the
causes underlying the event, and on making
changes in the care delivery systems and processes
to reduce the probability of such an event in the
future.
3. Increase the general knowledge about sentinel
events, their causes, and strategies for prevention.
4. Improve the safety of health care for the consumer
and to maintain the confidence of the public in the
care provided.
When a sentinel event occurs in a health care
organisation, it is necessary that appropriate individuals
within the organisation are made aware of the event;
investigate and understand the causes that underlie the
event; and make changes in the organisation’s systems
and processes to reduce the probability of such an
event occurring in the future.
Identification of sentinel events
Sentinel events can occur and be identified in three
ways:
1. There are sentinel events that can be identified by
teams prospectively, that is, anticipated. It will be
known, that if certain outcomes eventuate, they
will constitute sentinel events. If such an event
does occur, it could flag a major quality of care
issue.These events will be different for each clinical
area. Examples of sentinel events that can be
identified prospectively are:
• an unexpected neonatal death
• surgery on the wrong patient or the wrong limb
• haemolytic transfusion reaction involving
administration of blood or blood products
having major blood group incompatibilities
• cannulation of a peripheral artery for
administration of IV drugs
• loss of digits or limbs as a result of health care
management
• infection of children who suffer from cystic
fibrosis and who are Pseudomonas cepacia
negative by children who are Pseudomonas
cepacia positive
• significant adverse drug reactions
• significant medication errors
• death of a renal transplant patient within three
months of transplant
• renal transplant graft failure within 3 months,
including unsuccessful intraoperative
completion of transplantation.
2. Other sentinel events will only be recognised at
the time they occur, as the event could not be
anticipated. For example:
• death of a conscious, previously fit, 19 year old
male, admitted to ICU overnight for observation
of a possible head injury, following an MVA.
2 Sentinel event management13

3. Other events may initially appear as a series of
incidents, which may only be retrospectively
identified as a sentinel event. Staff must be taught
to recognise the appearance, or development of, a
sentinel event. For example:
• the prolonged length of stay (LOS) of one
patient following an endoscopic retrograde
cholangeo pancreatography (ERCP) because of
unexpected pancreatitis and followed soon after
by the prolonged LOS of another patient and
then perhaps another patient, following ERCP,
all of whom have suffered unexpected
pancreatitis.
Each event in itself would not constitute a sentinel
event, but the cluster of events should alert
clinicians and managers to the possibility of a
significant problem.
Method
When a clinical team detects or suspects significant
undesirable performance or variation, which has, or
could result in, a sentinel event, an intense analysis
must be initiated to determine where best to focus
changes for achieving improvement.
All sentinel events require investigation and analysis
and such analysis should be conducted under the six
dimensions of quality of care.
The investigation should focus primarily on systems
and processes, not individual performance. It should
progress from special causes in clinical processes to
common causes in organisational processes.The
analysis should identify potential improvements in
processes or systems that would tend to decrease the
likelihood of such events in the future, or it may be
determined after analysis, that no such improvement
opportunities exist. Such an investigation is referred to
as a Root-Cause Analysis.
Action required
The product of the investigation and analysis of a
sentinel event is an action plan that identifies the
strategies that the clinical team intends to implement
to reduce the risk of similar events occurring in the
future.The plan should address responsibility for
implementation, mechanisms for oversight, time
lines, and strategies for measuring the effectiveness
of the actions.
Reporting
The investigating team leader should report sentinel
events to both the clinical director and the peak
quality committee in the facility in which the event
occurred.That committee is responsible for
undertaking the actions required at the facility level to
ensure that the risk of a repeat event is reduced.Area
Health Services need to clearly define the lines for
reporting sentinel events to the Area Executive, the
Area Quality Council and beyond.
Such reports should include:
• a brief summary of the event
• a brief summary of the investigation and analysis
that has taken place
• actions (to be) taken
• recommendations for other teams, other facilities
and/or the Area Health Service and/or the health
system as a whole.
A statewide Quality Improvement Incident
Management Strategy for the NSW health system has
identified the need for mandatory reporting of
sentinel events and selected frequent incidents at the
State level to ensure that lessons learned from each
event are communicated to the entire health system.
Managers will be required to report, investigate and
analyse such events in the future.

Definition
Clinical indicators are indicators or measures that
relate to specific clinical conditions, or measures
of function that have particular significance for
particular conditions.15
A clinical indicator is also
defined by the Australian Council on Healthcare
Standards (ACHS) as a measure of the clinical
management and outcome of care. It is an objective
measure of either the process or outcome of patient
care in quantitative terms.
Objectives
Clinical indicators are not exact standards; rather, they
are designed to be ‘flags’ which, through the collection
and analysis of data, can alert clinicians to possible
problems and/or opportunities for improvement in
patient care.These areas can then be further
investigated within the clinical team or referred to the
peak quality committee within that facility for action
at the organisational level.
The benefits to be gained from the use of clinical
indicators do not lie in the collection of the data,
but in how those data are used; that is, in the data
analysis and the actions taken to achieve sustained
improvements in clinical practice. Clinical indicators
do not ‘work’ unless used effectively by clinicians and
managers to bring about improvements.
The following should be considered when selecting
indicators:
• Identify those indicators which need to be
monitored and reported.
• Indicators should be chosen for the value they have
in providing the information required by clinicians
to measure and improve the quality of care, not
simply for the purposes of reporting.
• The indicators may be based on ACHS or other
established and validated indicators.
• The list of indicators collected and reported does
not necessarily need to be lengthy.A smaller
number of indicators, that provide useful and
relevant information about the quality of clinical
care and upon which action can be taken, is far
better than a large number of indicators that do
not fulfil these needs.
• The identification of appropriate indicators should
be an iterative process and should involve an
assessment of issues such as the usefulness of the
data, availability of existing collection mechanisms
and resources required for collection.
• These indicators may be ACHS, State, national,
College, or locally developed indicators. It should
be noted that the ACHS clinical indicators are
developed and endorsed by the medical colleges
and the use of national or State based clinical
indicators there is the added advantage of gaining
aggregated comparative values.
Method
• The indicator data collected will give clinical teams
information about the care that is delivered.
• Teams should discuss the data collected on each
indicator chosen and identify those areas of
practice variation that require further investigation.
Teams should incorporate these discussions into
other team/clinical unit meetings.
• Such data should be used to ‘flag’ areas for possible
investigation.The absolute numbers collected may
not give teams a great deal of information initially.
Graphed trends in the data will give teams more
valuable information and will alert teams to the
need for investigation.
• These investigations should be undertaken using
the scientific, clinical practice improvement
method described in Section 3 of this Toolkit.
3 The effective use of clinical indicators

Variations in the data collected can be found in
almost every indicator, whether they be clinical,
facility or Area level data.There will almost always be
a range in the levels of performance identified.There
are many reasons for these variations. It is not always
possible to immediately identify the cause(s) of
variations in data and therefore what needs to be done
to reduce it. If variation is found however, it is
essential that health services thoroughly examine the
cause and institute action when such an examination
reveals opportunities for improvement.
It is recommended to initially identify the following
information:
• the reason for collecting the data
• the definition of the numerator, denominator and
standard/benchmark (if available)
• the reporting period
• the numbers
• the action required to improve the quality of care
as a result of the data collection
• comments on the data, eg. an explanation of any
unusual results.
A model collection and action format can be found at
Appendix 2.

Definitions
Peer review is the process of reviewing one’s peers.
The difficulty arises in defining ‘one’s peers’.The term
‘peer’ will therefore be deliberately left undefined, but
medical practitioners are encouraged to include nurses
and allied health professionals in peer review where
possible and appropriate.
Peer review is accepted as an important part of the
quality improvement processes intrinsic to health
care, and the practice of peer review is as diverse
as medicine itself. Peer review is not necessarily a
distinct entity, but can and does form a major part of
a number of quality improvement strategies, as
described in this Toolkit.
A Peer Review meeting is but one way of
undertaking peer review. It is a meeting in which
clinicians seek to improve their treatment of patients,
and to maintain the currency of their practice by
focussing on recent events and outcomes (individual
or collected) of the patients under the care of the
group forming the meeting.
The benefits of peer review, in its most narrow
definition (ie. a meeting of senior medical
practitioners only), are not easily able to be quantified,
but it still plays an important role in the quality
improvement efforts of a number of clinicians,
particularly in some disciplines.
Objective
The primary role of peer review is to inform those
present about the status of their own practices against
their peers.
Guidelines
Clinicians who engage in peer review meetings need
to establish guidelines about the form, content and
documentation of meetings, with respect for the
existing diversity across health disciplines.A recent
report16
on peer review suggests the following
guidelines for effective peer review meetings.
1. A Peer Review meeting should be held at least
four times per year in most disciplines, and should
be constituted so that the minimum quorum is
three participants.There should be an elected
Chair, and a member should be nominated to take
note of key findings.
2. The report that results from a Peer Review
meeting will depend upon the discipline involved
and whether the meeting has been granted
Qualified Privilege under the NSW Health
Administration Act 1982 (as amended).17
This
legislation itself is being reviewed, and it is hoped
that any changes will make the process for
obtaining privilege clearer. Most current peer
review committees are not privileged, and may
not need to be.
The report needs to be in a form that recognises
the essential components of Peer Review.
These are:
• discussion of adverse events
• quantitative indices of the clinical unit’s
performance
• identification of systemic deficiencies
• follow up of previously identified matters
• (rarely) the recognition of serious concern
about an individual’s performance.
A suggested template can be found at Appendix 3.18
It should be noted that no patient or clinician
should be identified in any part of the report.
Each unit’s peer review reports need to be
collected by the unit, so that their own
performance can be collated over time.The report
also needs to be passed on for action within the
health facility.The following are suggested as
guidelines for further discussion.
4 Peer review meetings

• The report is of limited value unless it is
forwarded to an appropriate authority within
the institution concerned. It should be
forwarded to (for example) the Head of
Division, the Director of Clinical Services or a
senior clinician delegated by them,
or the Chair of the committee which forms the
next tier in the Quality Framework of the
health facility involved.The reporting route
needs to be established locally.
• The person who takes on the role of receiving
the reports and therefore of overseeing the
facility’s clinical peer review processes needs to
have some well defined and important
responsibilities.These include acknowledgment
of each report (preferably in writing), collating
each clinical unit’s peer review activity over
time, noting and acting upon identified system
problems and following up any unresolved
matters with the Chair of the Peer Review
meeting. He/she would also need to be able to
report to the Facility or Area Quality Council.
Resources will be required for this activity.
3. Issues may arise within a peer review meeting that
require the triggering of one of the other activities
described in this Toolkit. For example it may be
necessary to report and investigate a sentinel event,
or to undertake an ad hoc audit to properly assess
the problem.
4. Matters which touch upon serious and repeated
under-performance on the part of an individual may
arise at a peer review meeting.This type of issue may
come to light as a result of individual adverse events or
because one of the quantitative tools indicates less than
acceptable results and a confidential analysis of the data
reveals that one of the clinicians involved has clearly
worse results.A closed peer review meeting may give
the opportunity to address this type of issue effectively,
but the members of the meeting should be wary of
keeping a serious matter ‘in house’ and must consider
immediate referral to those who are responsible for
managing the performance of that individual.
It must be stressed that the vast majority of
mistakes that occur in health care are the result
of inadequate systems that do not assist clinicians
to minimise the risk of expected human error.
However, if clinicians are engaging in egregious
unsafe or inappropriate acts, this must be brought
to the attention of the health service manager, who
has responsibility for action.19
In conclusion
Peer review, in its strictest definition has a limited role
in the institutional quality improvement process, and
should not be regarded as a substitute for the other
activities described in this Toolkit. Regular peer review
meeting should complement these strategies for
quality improvement rather than replace them.

Definition
A meeting held on a regular basis to review deaths
and adverse outcomes in patients of a specified clinical
group or specialty.
Objectives
1. To critically analyse the circumstances that
surrounded the outcomes of care provided by a
multidisciplinary group of clinicians.These outcomes
should include all deaths, serious morbidity and
significant aspects of regular clinical practice.20
2. To make recommendations for improving the
processes of care given to this group of patients.
3. To initiate action on these recommendations and
to oversee the progress of these actions.
Principles for conduction M&Ms21
• Morbidity and mortality meetings should be
considered to be a ‘core’ activity for all clinicians.
• All meetings should be multidisciplinary and
should include all clinicians, technicians and
managers who are involved in the care of that
group of patients.
• All levels of staff involved in the care of these
patients – both junior and senior – should be
involved.
• Meetings should be held on a regular basis and at
least once a month.
• All deaths should be identified and if appropriate
should include deaths that occurred outside of the
acute care setting.
• Focus should be placed on identifying the issues
related to the processes or systems of care that lead
to the death or incident and not on the individuals
who provided the care.
• Discussions should be used for educative purposes
and not for apportioning blame to individuals.
• Discussions should focus on measures that can be
recommended or implemented to prevent a similar
incident or adverse outcome.
• A brief report should be compiled after each
meeting which identifies the actions that must
be taken as a result of the discussions and review.
If there are no recommendations for action, that
should be so recorded.
• If action cannot be taken at the clinical level, a
report should be sent to the facility or Area
Quality Council identifying the issues that should
be addressed at that level.
• All action items should be placed on the agenda
for the next meeting.
• Feedback must always occur.
• M&Ms should not be used only to review the
‘exotic’ cases that may be of greater interest to
clinicians. M&Ms provide an ideal forum for the
regular review of the clinical indicators that are
relevant to that specialty or field of practice.
• Everyone who is associated with the care that
is being reviewed should have the opportunity
to report.
• Case review should be conducted in a timely
manner so that it is within recent memory of the
people involved in the case.
5 Morbidity and Mortality meetings (M&Ms)

Definition
An ad hoc audit involves the opportunistic survey of
some specific practice prompted by the development
of a related hypothesis by an observant clinician.
A potential problem is identified and investigated and
if necessary, changes in practice that are designed to
improve patient care are implemented.These audits
occur over a finite period and contrast with
retrospective chart audits and the use of clinical
indicators which are ongoing and continuous processes.
Such an audit should involve more than just a review
of case notes.An effective ad hoc audit will involve the
first two stages of the clinical practice improvement
methodology that is described in Section 3 and
Appendix 1 of this Toolkit.22 23 24
Such a process requires
that all sources of information are explored to ensure
that all aspects of the problem are identified and a
correct ‘diagnosis’ can be made.A comprehensive
review/audit may involve:
• reviewing case notes
• undertaking a literature review
• conducting surveys and/or questionnaires
• running customer focus groups
• developing a cause and effect diagram
• constructing a process flow chart
• collecting data about the process under review
Objective
The objective of an ad hoc audit is to investigate fully
the nature, extent and causes of a problem associated
with clinical care and to identify possible strategies for
improvement.
Method
1. A problem is identified or suspected.
Once the nature of the project has been decided
the next important step is to gather the appropriate
people to work on and solve the problem that has
been identified.
The review/audit process should be undertaken
by a team of people who have an interest in the
process being reviewed. It should be led by a
person who has the authority and skills to do so.
• Such a team must have a fundamental
knowledge of the process and therefore should
consist of people who work with the process.
• They must represent all parts of the process.
It is very easy to omit those people who are
considered to be external to a process, eg. the
pathology department or allied health
professionals.
• Careful consideration should be given here to
including consumers on the project team.They
are able to bring a very different perspective on
the process and to identify areas for improvement.
The team should decide exactly what process is
being reviewed or audited and how that review is
to be undertaken.
2. The second part of the audit/review process is to
collect all the information that is available about
the issue of concern in order to establish correctly,
the full scope, nature and extent of the problem
and to determine what other clinicians are doing
to manage this issue.
This part of the review requires a fair degree of
planning. No one person should be expected to
undertake all aspects of the review.At this point,
those activities (as listed above) that are to
comprise the review should be allocated to team
members.This part of the review process can take a
number of months if conducted correctly, but the
importance of gathering this information should
not be understated.
3. When all the information about the problem is
gathered, the team will need to determine the
principle causes for the problem and based on the
evidence presented, the team should determine the
interventions that should be trialed to bring about
improvement.
6 Ad hoc audits/reviews

In conclusion
An audit or review should aim at producing an
improvement in the way that services or interventions
are delivered.An audit or review should not be
undertaken primarily for the purpose of identifying
poorly performing practitioners or for interest sake.
As with all of the activities described in this Toolkit,
clinicians must commit to act upon the information
obtained in an audit/review process, to improve the
systems of care.

Definition
Retrospective chart review is a continuous process of
patient medical record review which involves the use
of selected outcome criteria for screening purposes
followed by some form of peer review to determine,
whether an adverse event occurred and the level of
preventability of the event.
Purpose
The purpose of a retrospective chart review system is
to continuously monitor medical records to detect
deviations in an appropriate standard of care, provide
objective information about the consequences of that
deviation and to assist in understanding its causation.
Health services should develop an appropriate system
of chart review for that service which utilises the
resources available to do so. Some systems, as described
below, require significant levels of resource, but capture
a larger number of adverse events. Other systems
require fewer resources, but may be less effective in
identifying adverse events. Medical record review does
not have to occur retrospectively and often occurs
during a hospital admission.
Method
There have been a number of different methods
developed over the past ten years for conducting
retrospective chart reviews.25 26 27
The Quality in
Australian Health Care Study (1995) was based on
this method. Each method has its advantages and
disadvantages,28
but each relies on the same basic steps,
as described below.
1. All medical records are screened after discharge
using several general patient outcome criteria.
These patient’s records are chosen for review
because it has been shown that patients who
screen positive for these criteria have a high
probability of having experienced an adverse
event.29
Most systems utilise a limited list, similar to
the following list, as a first ‘flag’ to a possible event.
The number of screening criteria was reduced from
the 23 used for a (previous) more extensive
occurrence screening program, to 8.Wolff states that
the criteria chosen allow records to be screened by
non-clinical staff. Each one of the criteria individually
may or may not have independent meaning, but they
function as a trigger to an increased likelihood of an
adverse patient event.
7 Retrospective chart review
The Limited Occurrence30
Screening developed by
Wolff et al uses the following flags:
1. Death
2. Patient returning to theatre within 7 days
3. Transfer of patients from the general ward to the ICU
4. Patients whose length of stay exceeds 35 days
5. The unplanned readmission of a patient within 28
days of discharge
6. Cardiac arrest
7. Transfer of a patient to another acute care facility
8. Patients booked for theatre and cancelled.

The QaRNS program uses a flagging system to
identify approximately 10% of admissions which have
a high risk profile for adverse event, and then uses a
two stage medical record review of these records
(by registered nurses and medical officers).This is
the source material for the peer review meetings of
clinical departments. Education and accountability
of that peer review constitutes the role of the Medical
Review Committee of QaRNS, and is where this
information leads to clinical improvement. Issues that
are best dealt with in an aggregated manner are
reported in that way to hospital executive for system
wide action if required, and for ongoing monitoring.
The QAHCS has shown that, despite the highly
variable quality of medical records, they can still be
used to reliably and validly capture adverse events.
If an adverse event is noted in the medical records,
the events that are regarded as serious breaches in the
standard of care, or events that could reasonably be
regarded as preventable, are forwarded to an
appropriate peer group. In some systems this is the
department in which the patient was initially treated.
The most important aspect of the review process is to
identify a possible ‘issue’ of clinical management that
has, (or may in a future recurrence) lead to an adverse
event. It is therefore necessary to create a brief case
summary illustrating the ‘issue’. 31
The summary must be non-identifiable in terms of
the name of the patient (or MRN), nurse, doctor or
others, or by the date of admission or discharge.
The peer review is then triggered by this specific
question or identified ‘issue’, framed by the reviewing
medical practitioners.The peer group is then required
to provide a structured response addressing whether
the appropriate standard of care has been met, an
evaluation of the care and what steps are being taken
to prevent recurrence. If the response from the
department (or peers) suggests that there is a need for
a change in procedure, management, policy, protocol
or other change, a change mechanism should be
included in the response.
In conclusion
The medical record review process should be one
important part of any health facility’s (or Area Health
Service’s) quality assurance program. Chart review
alone, however, is not able to capture all incidents and
adverse events that occur in the course of the health
care process; it should be used with a number of other
strategies as described in this Toolkit.
The screening criteria used by Wilson et al in the
Quality in Australian Health Care Study.
1. Unplanned admission before index admission
2. Unplanned readmission after discharge from index
admission
3. Hospital incurred patient injury
4. Adverse drug reaction
5. Unplanned transfer from general care to intensive care
6. Unplanned transfer to another acute care hospital
7. Unplanned removal, injury or repair of organ
during surgery
8. Unplanned return to the operating room
9. Other patient complications (AMI, CAV, PE, etc)
10. Development of neurological deficit not present
on admission
11. Unexpected death
12. Inappropriate discharge to home
13. Cardiac or respiratory arrest, low Apgar score
14. Injury related to abortion or delivery
15. Hospital acquired infection/sepsis
16. Dissatisfaction with care documented in the
medical record
17. Documentation or correspondence indicating litigation
18. Any other undesirable outcomes not covered above.

Introduction
Section 2 of this Toolkit described a number of
methods that clinicians can use to derive information
about the quality of care they are providing to their
patients. In most circumstances, simply being aware
of this information does not lead to improvements
in clinical practice and/or care delivery. Clinicians
therefore need to progress beyond the identification of
problems and levels of performance to engage in the
following pragmatic, scientific process for achieving
clinical practice improvement.
The model for improvement
The model, which is described below for improving
the processes of care, has much in common with
prudent clinical work.
It involves the identification and diagnosis of a problem,
measurement of the scope and size of the problem,
the identification of a number of interventions that
may reduce the problem, implementation of the
intervention(s), and re-measurement to ascertain
whether the interventions have been effective.The
difference for clinicians is that the method is being
applied to improve the system of care and not (in this
instance) the health of a patient.
The model has two central components:
1. Three fundamental questions, which can be
addressed in any order
2. The application of a number of tests to determine
what changes are going to result in improvement.
Combined, the three questions and the PDSA Cycle
form the basis of the Model for Improvement.The
model is an improvement framework that is both
widely applicable and easy to learn and use.34
The three questions which need to be answered are:
1. What are we trying to accomplish?
2. How will we know that a change is an
improvement?
3. What changes can we make that will result in an
improvement?
The small tests are performed using a number of these
PDSA cycles.34
Improvement begins with setting aims.A clinical
team will not improve without a clear and firm
intention to do so.The aim should be expressed in
specific terms, eg. 30% reduction in Caesarean section
rates within 6 months, 50% reduction in delays in
surgery within 3 months.Agreement on the aim is
crucial; so is allocation of the people and resources
necessary to accomplish the aim.
Measurement is an important part of testing and
implementing changes. Measures need to be identified
to indicate whether a change that is made actually
leads to an improvement. Measures are used for
learning. For example: Did infection rates decrease
after changes were made to surgical scrub technique
or the introduction of prophylactic antibiotics?
3Clinical practice improvement method32 33
– the next step
ACT
Determine changes
to be made
PLAN
the change or test
DO
Carry out the plan
in a small group
STUDY
Summarise what
was learned

All improvement requires making a change but not
all changes result in improvement. Since achieving
new goals requires changing the system, it is important
to be able to identify promising changes.
Many sources can contribute good ideas for changes;
critical thinking about the current system, creative
thinking, watching the process, a hunch, getting
insight from a completely different situation, and
more. CPI methodology refers to good, general ideas
for change as ‘change concepts.’A change concept is a
general idea – with proven merit and a sound
scientific or logical foundation – that can stimulate
specific ideas for change that lead to improvement.
Using change concepts and combining them creatively
can stimulate new ways of thinking about the problem
at hand.
The Model for Improvement is based on a ‘trial-and-
learning’ approach to improvement.The PDSA cycle
is shorthand for testing a change – by trying it,
observing the consequences, and then learning from
those consequences.
The completion of each PDSA cycle leads directly
into the start of the next cycle.A clinical team learns
from the test, what worked and what did not work,
what should be kept, changed, or thrown out, and the
team uses the new knowledge to plan the next test.
The team continues linking PDSA cycles in this way,
refining the change until it is ready for broader
implementation. Many interventions/changes may
need to be tested to achieve the best practice possible.
A change in thinking – pragmatic science
To embrace PDSA learning in the service of
improvement, most clinicians need to make changes
in their own views of the nature of science and study.
A number of issues may be particularly troublesome.35
Firstly, clinicians may have to adjust their ideas about
the nature of ‘rigour’ in making changes in their
practice. Indeed, routine use of the PDSA cycle in the
practice of medicine is a far more rigorous approach
than most clinicians have actually used in the past to
justify changes in their own practices, allowing their
individual styles to migrate far apart.
Secondly, embracing PDSA cycles as a core approach
requires a new attitude towards ‘failure’; that is, failure
of a test to achieve its aim. In the world of PDSA
thinking, a failure can be far more valuable in building
knowledge than a whole series of successes.
Finally, PDSA cycles take time; improvement takes
investment. In a stressed work environment, it is easy
for clinicians and others to claim that they do not
have the energy or resources to support or participate
in, let alone initiate tests of change. One important
way to reduce resources required for each set of cycles
is to establish and maintain measurements of
important performance variables over time. If clinical
groups keep track of such measurements, the effects of
deliberate changes can easily be assessed.
The PDSA cycles, small-scale tests, linked to reflection
are powerful tools for learning in complex systems
when the aim is to improve systems.The simplicity of
the design is very appealing. However, the inculcation
of the small-scale test of change as part of the daily
routine and as essential steps in the continuous search
for improvement is not easy.The alternative however,
can be worse; to accept an inadequate status quo or
to take blind stabs at change in complex, non-linear
systems where consequences can be dire and hard to
predict.36
In trying to improve the process of care, wisdom often
lies not in accumulating all of the information that
could be used to prove a point, but in acquiring only
that amount of information necessary to support
taking the next steps.37
This section of the Toolkit has provided the reader
with an overview of the Clinical Practice
Improvement method.A flow of steps for this model
can be found at Appendix 1. More detailed
information on the practical application of the model
can be found in the guide entitled Clinical Practice
Improvement Made Easy:A Guide for Health Care
Professionals which is available from NSW Health.38
Clinical practice improvement method – the next step

This section of the Clinician’sToolkit provides a brief
description of four other ‘tools’ which may assist
clinicians and managers, in a variety of ways, in their
efforts to continuously improve the quality of clinical
care provided to consumers in the NSW health system.
4Aids to improve the quality
of clinical care
The Health Administration Act 1982 (NSW) (the Act)
protects health professionals by prohibiting the
disclosure of documentary or verbal evidence obtained
or created for the purposes of approved quality
improvement committees (Division 6B).39
The underlying aim of the legislation is to provide
an atmosphere of confidence and security, that will
encourage health care providers and managers to
communicate openly and honestly with their colleagues
in assessing the management, processes and outcome of
health care practices.
The legislation does this by rendering absolutely
confidential, in specified circumstances, the documents
and proceedings of approved quality committees, such
that information and discussion arising from the
formal quality improvement process cannot be used
in legal actions under those specified circumstances.
The legislation also provides protection from liability,
and indemnity, for present and former members of
approved quality committees who are or were acting
in good faith in carrying out their responsibilities.
The legislative provisions should encourage candid,
critical discussion and frank exchange of views and
opinions amongst health practitioners and managers.
Application of the legislation should have significant
educational benefits for health care personnel, and
important implications for the quality of the health care
system. Improvements in the knowledge and skills of
the practitioners and managers should flow from the
quality improvement process.And should lead to
improvements in the standards of care provided to
patients, and thus to improvements in patient outcomes.
Further information about the application process, the
benefits provided, and the restrictions and obligations
imposed by the legislation, is available on request from
NSW Health or from any NSW Area Health Service.
Qualified privilege

The delineation of clinical privileges by Boards on the
recommendation of Credentials Committees in public
hospitals and Area Health Services is a process which is
related to quality assurance, risk management and the
improvement of health outcomes.All Hospitals and
Area Health Services should ensure they have a
properly constituted Credentials Committee that
comprehensively reviews and recommends to the Board
the clinical privileges for all medical staff, other than
Junior Resident Medical Officers, who are working in
the public hospital system in New South Wales.
The purpose of delineating the privileges of medical
staff is to allow the matching of work that a
practitioner wishes to perform in a hospital with
demonstrated competence and professional skill, as
assessed by a Credentials Committee.The privileges
designated must also take into consideration the
delineated role of the hospital, the designated service
provided by the hospital and its support capabilities.
It is essential that formal credentialling processes are
in place to ensure that appropriate services of a high
quality are maintained for patient safety and as an
effective risk management tool for medico-legal
purposes.The granting of clinical privileges to individual
practitioners should always be made subject to the
express conditions that they may be reviewed, varied
or revoked in accordance with the relevant by-laws.
Delineation of clinical privileges should occur at the
time of appointment/re-appointment of Senior
Medical Staff and should be regularly reviewed with
the aid of their peers through the Credentials
Committee structure.The by-laws should also allow
for review of clinical privileges where particular
circumstances deem it necessary.The credentialling
process should also apply to Academic Medical Staff
in relation to clinical duties and should not be based
solely on the tenure of academic appointments if such
tenure is greater than five years.
Aids to improve the quality of clinical care
Credentialling and clinical privileges
Clinical supervision
Introduction
Supervision of junior clinicians is a normal aspect of
clinical practice and maintenance of practice standards.
In many health professions a period of supervised
clinical practice, following formal education, is required
for registration as a fully qualified practitioner.
Clinical supervision has been included in this Toolkit
to be considered not only by junior clinicians as an
adjunct to and a facilitator of quality improvement,
but also by senior and experienced clinicians.This
latter form of ‘supervision’ of one clinician by a peer
could also be seen as a form of peer review.
Definition
Supervision is defined as:
An intervention that is provided by a senior member
of a profession to a junior member or members of
that same profession.This relationship is evaluative,
extends over time, and has the simultaneous purposes
of enhancing the professional functioning of the
junior member(s), monitoring the quality of
professional services offered to the clients she, he or
they see(s), and serves as a gatekeeper for those who
are to enter the particular profession.40
Objectives
The goals of supervision are to:
1. promote ethical and professional standards of
conduct and to educate the supervisee about them
2. protect clients/patients, employers, and supervisees
themselves, during their initial professional
development
3. assist supervisees to apply their professional
knowledge to their current and future work
4. increase the effectiveness of supervisees as
clinicians.

Supervision model
A preferred supervision model is based upon
developmental principles. Such a model assumes that
learning involves a staged sequence of developmental
tasks, that these tasks may be defined, and that the
learning taking place results in professional competence
as deemed essential for qualified clinicians.
Suggestions for supervision by a peer
(Peer Model)
The practice of supervision by a peer, though
not common in the medical profession is relatively
common in both the nursing and allied health
professions and not unheard of in the medical
profession. It can take a number of forms.
These include:
• Supervisory meeting akin to a peer review meeting
discussed in the previous section of this Toolkit on
Peer Review.
• The oversight of one clinician by another of the
performance of a particular procedure or
assessment task. Once a general practitioner has
graduated from University he/she is rarely required
ever again to undertake an assessment or procedure
whilst being observed or assessed by a peer. It is
recommended that this be requested by clinicians
of their peers, on a regular basis.The same applies
to medical specialists. Once qualified, supervision
ceases. Enlightened clinicians are also able to seek
comment on their performance from nursing and
junior staff with whom they work.This can
provide the clinician with many opportunities for
improvement.
• A further form of supervision can be requested
by clinicians when a difficult situation arises.
For example, it has been found, by a group of
cardio-thoracic surgeons that if, whilst operating,
a surgeon encounters extreme difficulties it is best
to call a colleague into the operating theatre,
and stand back and have the second surgeon
independently assess the situation.This action
serves a number of purposes. If a chain of errors
is taking place it will most likely break the chain
thereby minimising the risk of a major adverse
event occurring.The supervisory action will also
provide education for both surgeons and the input
from the second surgeon provides both a physical
and intellectual break for the operating surgeon.
Such action can only improve the quality of care
and benefit the patient.
• Such forms of supervision need not be formal
processes but if undertaken in the correct manner
and spirit can prove to be an important component
of an individual’s quality management processes.

Introduction
The appropriate handling of complaints can help to
facilitate the improvement and maintenance of high
quality care. Complaints can cover a wide range of
situations and services and the gravity of the issues
involved may also vary considerably.41
It is therefore
not necessary for clinicians to deal with all complaints,
but all complaints that relate to the quality of care
provided by a clinical team or individual clinician
should be referred to that team or person for review.
Complaints data also provide useful information to be
fed into a facility’s/unit’s quality processes.
Definition
A complaint is defined as an ‘expression of
dissatisfaction by a complainant’.42
Objectives
An effective complaints handling process results in
being a key component of the provision of a quality
service as it may identify the area for which
improvement may be required by:
• addressing patterns of practice
• highlighting deficiencies in protocols, guidelines
and procedure
• highlighting areas requiring further training and
development
• providing critical clinical information
• providing an objective mechanism for monitoring
clinical outcomes as an alternative to reliance on
peer review and self-regulation
• providing the opportunity for complainants to
achieve satisfaction by:
– demonstrating the services commitment to
providing a quality service
– recognising and acknowledging the consumers
right to complain
– restoring trust and support for the service
provider
– legitimatising the value of consumer input into
quality improvement
– improving communication in patient care.
General principles for acting on
complaints
The fundamental principle in dealing with complaints
is that it should be viewed as an opportunity for
improvement.
Quite often, the service or clinician about
which/whom the complaint is made, may disagree
with the complainant about the circumstances that
lead to the complaint being made, or may not feel
that the complaint was justified.The important point
is that the complainant perceived that the quality of
the care or service provided was problematic or
substandard.The incident should therefore be
investigated and considered for its value in improving
the quality of the care or service provided.
• The principles of natural justice must be followed.
• The complaint should be acknowledged and both
parties advised of the status of the process if the
resolution has extended over a considerable period
of time.
• Attempts should be made to mediate between the
complainant and the person against whom the
complaint is lodged to resolve the complaint.
• Both parties must be allowed to put forward the
issues as they see them relating to the complaint.
This means that both the complainant and the
person against whom the complaint is lodged must
be allowed to freely and openly express their views
of the complaint.
• Timely and appropriate information on the
complaints process should be provided to the
complainant and the person complained about.
• Complaints should be assessed to identify the most
appropriate resolution approach to take, including
formal investigation.
• An investigation should seek to clarify what
occurred and to identify systems involvement as
well as any competence or conduct issue.
• Actions should mainly focus on the corrective
action/s to be implemented in the system to avoid
the event or perceived event recurring.
• The resolution process should identify whether or
not the issues in the complaint were substantiated.
The effective use of complaints

Term Definition
Adverse event An unintended injury or complication that results in disability, death or prolonged
hospital stay and is caused by health care management
ACHS Australian Council of Health Care Standards
Area Health Service Refers to the 17 Area Health Services in the state and the 3 statewide health services
(The New Children’s Hospital, the Ambulance Service and the Corrections Health Service)
Clinician Medical practitioner, nurse or allied health professional
Consumer Any person or group of persons who use or have the potential to use health services
Health system A conceptual system that consists of the totality of entities (and their interrelationships)
that intend to maintain or improve people’s health
Risk The exposure to the possibility of such things as economic or financial loss, physical
damage, injury or delay, as a consequence of pursuing or not pursuing a particular
course of action (draft Guidelines of managing risk in Healthcare, Standards Australia, A/NZ)
The six dimensions of Quality
Safety The extent to which potential risks are avoided and inadvertent harm is minimised in
care delivery processes
Effectiveness The extent to which a treatment or intervention has achieved the desired outcome
Appropriateness The selection of the intervention that is most likely to produce the desired outcome
Consumer participation The process of establishing a partnership with the consumer/patient/carers
Access The extent to which an individual (or population) can obtain the interventions they need
Efficiency The extent to which the highest quality is able to be produced at the lowest cost
5Definitions & bibliography

Alexander Henderson and Associates, 2000. Lessons for
Health Care:Applied Human Factors Research. Report of a
Special Medical Seminar. Prepared for The Australian
Council on Safety and Quality in Health Care.
Allman, J. 2000, Quality Maintenance and Improvement
in Clinical Health Care in the Hospital Environment.
Unpublished manuscript The Sydney Adventist
Hospital, NSW.
Barach, P. & Small, S. 2000, Reporting and preventing
medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss
reporting systems. BMJ 320:759-763 (18th March).
Bernard, J.M. & Goodyear, R.K. 1992, Fundamentals
of Clinical Supervision Boston:Allyn and Bacon
Berwick, D. 1998, Developing and Testing Changes in
Delivery of Care.Annals of Internal Medicine 128 (8)
pp 651-656.
Berwick, D. & Nolan,T. 1998, Physicians as leaders in
Improving Health Care:A Series in Annals of Internal
Medicine.Annals of Internal Medicine 128 (4):
289-292.
Boyce, McNeil, Graves and Dunt. 1997, Quality and
Outcome Indicators for Acute Healthcare Services.
Brennan,TA. Leape, LL. Laird, NM. et al Incidence of
adverse events and negligence in hospitalised patients.
N Eng J Med 1991; 324:370-376.
Cartmill, J. et al 2000, Human Error in Medicine Course
– Executive Summary.A NSW Health Quality Branch
Publication.
Committee of Chairmen of NSW State Chairs of
Medical Colleges 2000 Review of Peer Review. Prepared
for NSW Health.
Gosbee, J W. 2000, Human Factors Engineering is the
Basis for a Practical, Error-in-Medicine Curriculum
Michigan State University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Hotop, SD. 1985, Principles of Australian Administrative
Law, 6th Edition, Law Book Co, Sydney, 169 - 171.
Institute for Healthcare Improvement 1997, A Model
for Accelerating Improvement, in Breakthrough Series Guide
- Reducing Cesarean Section Rates:While Maintaining
Maternal and Infant Outcomes.
Institute of Medicine. 1999, To Err is Human: Building
a Safer Health System National Academic Press.
Washington DC.
James, B. 1999, Course notes. Clinical Practice
Improvement Program NSW Health.
Langley, G. Nolan, K. Nolan,T. Norman, C. Provost,
P Jossey. 1996, The Improvement Guide.A practical
Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance.
Bass Publishers. San Francisco.
Leape, L. 1994, Error in Medicine Journal of the
American Medical AssociationVol 272 No 23
1851-1857.
McNeil and Boyce. 1999, Report to National Health
Ministers Benchmarking Working Group on Patient Safety
Monitoring Systems. Commonwealth Department of
Health and Human Services.
NSW Health, 1990 Circular No: 90/82 Privilege for
Quality Assurance Committees.
NSW Health, 1995 Circular 95/24 Guidelines for the
Delineation of Clinical Privileges of Medical Staff,April.
NSW Health, 1998 Frontline Complaints Handling
Better Practice Guide.
NSW Health, 1999 A Framework of Managing the
Quality of Health Services in New South Wales.
NSW Health, 2001 Qualified Privilege for Quality
Improvement Committees and Programs in Health.
NSW Health, 2001 Clinical Practice Improvement Made
Easy:A Guide for Health Care Professionals.
Royal North Shore Hospital. 1993, Evaluation of
Patient Selection for the Quality Assurance Programme
Royal North Shore Hospital (QARNS), December.
Scholtes, P. Joiner, B. Streibel, B. 1996, The Team
Handbook 2nd Edition Oriel Publishing.
Smith, I. 1997, Safety in Health Care:Working Paper.
Prepared for the NSW Ministerial Advisory
Committee on Quality in Health Care.
Standards Australia 2000, Draft Guidelines for Managing
Risk in Healthcare, July.
Bibliography

Standards Australia. 1999, Risk Management,AS/NZS
4360.
Taskforce on Quality in Australian Healthcare. 1996,
The final report of theTaskforce on quality in Australian health
care. Australian Health Ministers’Advisory Council.
UK Department of Health, 2000 Organisation with
a Memory.
Vincent,C, Neale, G.Woloshynowych, M. Adverse
events in British Hospitals: preliminary retrospective record
review. BMJ 2001;322:517-519 (3 March).
Wilson, Irwig, March and Harrison. 1993, Evaluation
of patient Selection for the Quality Assurance Programme:
Royal North Shore Hospital (QARNS), December.
Wilson, Runciman et al 1995, The Quality in Australian
Health Care Study, MJA 163(9): 458-471.
Wolff,A. & Dooling, C. 1992, Limited Adverse
Occurrence Screening:A Program with Significant Benefits
for the Medical Record Department. AMR JournalVol 2
No 3.
Bibliography

Notes

The following diagram43
represents the five stages in
the improvement process.They are:
1. The project - Identifying what you are trying to
accomplish and who should be involved.
2. The diagnostic phase - Establishing the full
extent of the problem, what changes can be made
that will result in an improvement and how to
measure that.
3. The intervention – Actually implementing
the changes that were identified in the Diagnostic
phase.
4. The impact – Measuring and recording the effect
of the changes.
5. Sustaining the improvement – Ongoing
monitoring and planning for future improvement.
This cycle is ongoing.
AAppendices
1
2
3
4
5
Project
Diagnostic
Phase
Intervention
Impact
Sustaining
Improvement
Mission statement
Project team
2 months
2 months
1 month
Ongoing monitoring
Outcome
Future plans
Annotated
run chart
SPC charts
Plan a change
Do it in a small test
Study its effects
Act on the result
Conceptual Flow of process
Customer Grid
Data
– Fishbone
– Pareto chart
– Run charts
– SPC charts
A P
S D
A
P
S
D
A
P
S
D
A
PS
D
A
PS
D
Appendix 1 – Clinical practice improvement model

The Clinicians Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care NSW Health28
The following flow chart identifies the essential steps
to be taken when using the model to successfully
improve clinical practice.
Appendix 1
Problem identified by variation in data, complaints, etc.
Form Guidance Team Form Project Team
Develop aims statement
Collect evidence
needed to
diagnose problem
Organise and prioritise
information
Decide on interventions
PDSA cycles
Measure impact
Implement the changes
Sustain the gains
Collect supportive data
Process flow chart
Brainstorming session
Customer focus groups
Literature reviews/site visits
Cause and effect diagram
Pareto chart
Draw graphs of current data
eg. Run Chart, SPC, Tally Sheet
Annotated run draft
SPC charts
Other graphs
Standardisation
Documentation
Measurement
Training
ContinuousQualityLoop
1.TheProject2.DiagnosticPhase3.Intervention4.Impact
5.Sustaining
Improvement

Template
NSW Health The Clinicians Toolkit – For Improving Patient Care 29
Appendix 2 – Clinical indicator report template
Appendix 2
Area Health Service Quality Council
Clinical Indicator Report
Date of Report
Clinical Grouping
Clinical Department
Indicator Description
Origin of Indicator (eg. ACHS, RACP or locally developed)
Rationale
Definition of Numerator
Definition of Denominator
Standard or Benchmark
Data
Reporting period
Numerator
Denominator
Summary of analysis and action recommended to improve quality
Person responsible for action
Comments

Template
Appendix 3 – Peer review meeting report template
Appendix 3
(Health Facility)
(Clinical Department)
Departmental Peer Review Meeting
This meeting (has / has not) been granted qualified privilege under the Hospitals Administration Act 1982.
Date Chaired by
Present
Adverse events
As a result of certain incidents discussed, the meeting found cause for concern about (list circumstances causing
concern, without features which would identify individuals)
The following internal actions resulted (eg. change in practice, call for an audit to be conducted or for a literature
review to be presented)
oror
II There were no causes for concern as a result of adverse events.
Quantitative indices
(a) II An audit had been performed over the period / / to / /
(eg. audit of infection rates, cancer survival, drug related complications etc)
II No audits were presented at this meeting.
(b) The Clinical Indicators for the period / / to / / were reported as follows

Template
Hospital wide indicators (for units with inpatients – other to be defined)
Pulmonary embolus events from at risk
Wound infection events from at risk
Unexpected return to OT events from at risk
Specific indicators (appropriate for the discipline – eg. RACS / ACHS agreed indicators for each specialty)
II Clinical indicators were not reported at this meeting.
There (was / was not) concern arising from one or more of these measures.The following internal actions resulted.
System issues
1. As a result of one of the above processes, there was concern about
and it was felt that an appropriate action was beyond the capacity of this group.
The matter was referred to (individual or committee)
OR
II No such matters arose at this meeting
2. II During discussions, a serious matter was raised which reflected upon an individual’s patterns of treatment
or behaviour.
II This committee was not capable of the resolution of this matter.
II No such matters arose at this meeting.
OR
II The committee is dealing with the matter in the following way
Appendix 3

Template
3. II Issues raised at previous meetings were discussed, and noted as resolved or current according to the
attached list.
II There were conflicting views expressed about section 1, 2 or 3 above (circle appropriate number) and these
conflicts were not resolved by the close of the meeting.
II A minority dissenting view was recorded.
OR
II No such matters arose at this meeting.
Signed (Chairman)
Copies of this report to be sent to
(eg. Director of Clinical Services, Head of Division – as agreed locally)
Appendix 3

1 Cartmill, J. et al 2000, Human Error in Medicine
Course – Executive Summary.A NSW Health
Quality Branch Publication.
2 Gosbee, J W. 2000, Human Factors Engineering is the
Basis for a Practical, Error-in-Medicine Curriculum.
Michigan State University, Kalamazoo, MI.
3 Leape, L. 1994, Error in Medicine. Journal of the
American Medical Association.Vol. 272, No. 23:
1851-1857.
4 Alexander Henderson and Associates 2000,
Lessons for Health Care:Applied Human Factors
Research. Report of a Special Medical Seminar.
Prepared for The Australian Council on Safety
and Quality in Health Care.
5 NHS 1998,The new NHS: Modern and
Dependable.
6 The six dimensions of quality identified in
The Framework for Managing the Quality of
Health Services in NSW 1999, NSW Health.
See Definitions p46.
7 Institute of Medicine 1999, To Err is Human:
Building a Safer Health System National Academic
Press.Washington DC.
8 Barach, P. & Small, S. 2000, Reporting and preventing
9 Australian Patient Safety Foundation (1997).
10 Barach, P. & Small, S. 2000, Reporting and preventing
11 Op cit
12 Refer to Definitions section for more details about
the six dimensions of quality.
13 This guideline is based on the work being
undertaken by the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.
14 Sentinel Event Policy and Procedures (1999), Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations.
15 Boyce, McNeil, Graves and Dent. 1997, Quality
and Outcome Indicators for Acute Healthcare Services,
Commonwealth Department of Health and
Human Services.
16 Committee of Chairmen of NSW State Chairs
of Medical Colleges 2000, Review of Peer Review.
Prepared for NSW Health.
17 Refer to section 4 of this Toolkit for further
information.
18 Note that there is space for the report to
document if there was an unresolved minority
view to be recorded.
19 Refer to the NSW Health Guideline for the
Management of a Complaint or Concern about a
Clinician (2001), for further information.
20 It is recommended that not only the ‘exotic’ aspect
of care be reviewed, but that regular clinical
practice should also be discussed and reviewed
on a regular basis.
21 These principles were established in consultation
with a group of senior clinicians in the NSW
health system.
22 A more detailed guide entitled Clinical Practice
Improvement Made Easy:A Guide for Health Care
Professionals is available from the NSW Health
Quality Branch on Tel. (02) 9391 9200.
23 Other excellent references include Langley, G.
Nolan, K. Nolan,T. Norman, C. Provost, P. 1996,
The Improvement Guide.A practical Approach to
Enhancing Organizational Performance. Jossey Bass
Publishers. San Francisco.
24 Scholtes, P. Joiner, B. Streibel, B. 1996, The Team
Handbook. 2nd Edition Oriel Publishing.
Endnotes

25 Wolff,A. & Dooling, C. 1992, Limited Adverse
Occurrence Screening:A Program with Significant
Benefits for the Medical Record Department. AMR
JournalVol2 N0 3.This system is used at (among
others) Wimmera Base Hospital,Vic.
26 Wilson, Runciman et al. 1995, The Quality in
Australian Health Care Study, MJA 163(9): 458-471.
This system is used at (among others) Royal North
Shore and the Sydney Adventist Hospitals, NSW.
27 The Quality Assurance Royal North Shore
(QARNS) program is also based on this method.
This program is the longest running such medical
record review program and has provided the basis
for the development of a number of similar
systems in other hospitals.
28 Smith, I. 1997, Safety in Health Care:Working Paper.
Prepared for the NSW Ministerial Advisory
Committee on Quality in Health Care.
29 An ‘adverse event’ is defined in the Quality in
Australian Health Care Study as “an unintended
injury or complication that results in disability, death or
prolonged hospital stay and is caused by health care
management.”
30 Wolff,A. & Dooling,C. 1992, Limited Adverse
Occurance Screening:A Program with Significant
Benefits for the Medical Records Department. AMR
JournalVol 2.
31 Allman J. 2000, Quality Maintenance and
Improvement in Clinical Health Care in the Hospital
Environment. Unpublished manuscript The Sydney
Adventist Hospital, NSW.
32 This guideline is based on the work of the
Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Boston and
of Brent James from Intermountain Health Care
in Salt Lake City, Utah. Further information on
IHI can be found at their website: www.ihi.org
and on Intermountain Health Care at
www.ihc.com.org
33 This methodology is taught to clinicians and
managers in the Clinical Practice Improvement
Program that is being conducted by NSW Health
and the NSW Council on Quality in Health Care.
For further information please contact the Quality
Branch or NSW Institute for Clinical Excellence.
34 The model identified in this guide is based on the
work of Nolan, James, Berwick, Shewhart and
many other proponents of quality improvement.
The three questions, followed by the Shewhart
cycles is specific to the Institute for Healthcare
Improvement, Boston USA.
35 Berwick, D. 1998, Developing and Testing Changes
in Delivery of Care. Annals of Internal Medicine
128 (8) pp. 651-656.
36 op cit
37 Berwick, D. and Nolan,T. 1998, Physicians as
Leaders in Improving Health Care:A New Series in
the Annals of Internal Medicine. Annals of Internal
Medicine 128(4) pp 289-292.
38 NSW Health Better Health Centre
Tel. (02) 9816 0452.
39 The NSW legislation was assented to in
December 1989 but commenced in 1990.
40 Bernard, J.M. & Goodyear, R.K. 1992,
Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision. Boston:Allyn
and Bacon.
41 Response to The Clinician’s Toolkit draft by The
Australasian College of Dermatologists April 2001
NSW Regional Faculty.
42 NSW Health, (1998) Frontline Complaints Handling
Better Practice Guide.
43 The model identified in this guide is based on the
work of Nolan, James, Berwick, Shewhart and
many other proponents of quality improvement.
The diagrammatic representation of the process
was developed by G. Rubin and B. Harrison for
NSW Health (for the NSW Clinical Practice
Improvement Steering Group) 2000.
Endnotes

This Toolkit has been developed by the NSW Health
Quality Branch in consultation and collaboration
with the NSW Medical Colleges, the NSW Council
on Quality in Health Care, the Australian Council
on Healthcare Standards and the NSW College
of Nursing.
Acknowledgments

Notes

Clinicians Toolkit NSW Health

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Clinicians Toolkit NSW Health (20)

Clinicians Toolkit NSW Health