Codifying knowledge to improve patient safety: a qualitative study of practice-based interventions.

Although it is well established that health care professionals use tacit and codified knowledge to provide front-line care, less is known about how these two forms of knowledge can be combined to support improvement related to patient safety. Patient safety interventions involving the codification of knowledge were co-designed by university and hospital-based staff in two English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals to support the governance of medication safety and mortality and morbidity (M&M) meetings. At hospital A, a structured mortality review process was introduced into three clinical specialities from January to December 2010. A qualitative approach of observing M&M meetings (n = 30) and conducting interviews (n = 40) was used to examine the impact on meetings and on front-line clinicians and hospital managers. At hospital B, a medication safety 'scorecard' was administered on a general medicine and elderly care ward from September to November 2011. Weekly feedback meetings were observed (n = 18) and interviews with front-line staff conducted (n = 10) to examine how knowledge codification influenced behaviour. Codification was shown to support learning related to patient safety at the micro (front-line service) level by structuring the sharing of tacit knowledge, but the presence of professional and managerial boundaries at the organisational level affected the codification initiatives' implementation. The findings suggest that codifying knowledge to support improvement presents distinct challenges at the group and organisational level; translating knowledge across these levels is contingent on the presence of enabling organisational factors, including the alignment of learning from clinical practice with its governance.

Mortality and morbidity meetings: an untapped resource for improving the governance of patient safety?

INTRODUCTION: National Health Service hospitals and government agencies are increasingly using mortality rates to monitor the quality of inpatient care. Mortality and Morbidity (M&M) meetings, established to review deaths as part of professional learning, have the potential to provide hospital boards with the assurance that patients are not dying as a consequence of unsafe clinical practices. This paper examines whether and how these meetings can contribute to the governance of patient safety. METHODS: To understand the arrangement and role of M&M meetings in an English hospital, non-participant observations of meetings (n=9) and semistructured interviews with meeting chairs (n=19) were carried out. Following this, a structured mortality review process was codesigned and introduced into three clinical specialties over 12 months. A qualitative approach of observations (n=30) and interviews (n=40) was used to examine the impact on meetings and on frontline clinicians, managers and board members. FINDINGS: The initial study of M&M meetings showed a considerable variation in the way deaths were reviewed and a lack of integration of these meetings into the hospital's governance framework. The introduction of the standardised mortality review process strengthened these processes. Clinicians supported its inclusion into M&M meetings and managers and board members saw that a standardised trust-wide process offered greater levels of assurance. CONCLUSION: M&M meetings already exist in many healthcare organisations and provide a governance resource that is underutilised. They can improve accountability of mortality data and support quality improvement without compromising professional learning, especially when facilitated by a standardised mortality review process.