Adaptive regulation or governmentality: patient safety and the changing regulation of medicine

Studies from across the world have shown that clinical mistakes are a major threat to the safety of patient care (World Health Organisation 2004). For the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales it is estimated that one in ten hospital patients experience some form of error, and each year these cost the service over £2billion in remedial care (Department of Health 2000). Unsurprisingly, ‘patient safety’ is now a major international health policy priority, questioning the efficacy of existing regulatory practices and proposing a new ethos of learning. Within England and Wales, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has been created to lead policy development and champion service-wide learning, whilst throughout the NHS the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) has been introduced to enable this learning (NPSA 2003). This paper investigates the extent to which, in seeking to better manage the threats to patient safety, this policy agenda represents a transition in medical regulation.

Doctors' thinking about the system as a threat to patient safety

‘Systems thinking’ is an important feature of the emerging ‘patient safety’ agenda. As a key component of a ‘safety culture’, it encourages clinicians to look past individual error to recognise the latent factors that threaten safety. This paper investigates whether current medical thinking is commensurate with the idea of ‘systems thinking’ together with its implications for policy. The findings are based on qualitative semistructured interviews with specialist physicians working within one NHS District General Hospital in the English Midlands. It is shown that, rather then favouring a 'person-centred’ perspective, doctors readily identify ‘the system’ as a threat to patient safety. This is not necessarily a reflection of the prevailing safety discourse or knowledge of policy, but reflects a tacit understanding of how services are (dis)organised. This line of thinking serves to mitigate individual wrong-doing and protect professional credibility by encouraging doctors to accept and accommodate the shortcomings of the system, rather than participate in new forms of organisational learning.

A Utilitarian Perspective of Social and Medical Contributions to Three Illustrative Conditions, and Recent UK NHS Policy Initiatives

Background: To date debate concerning the relative merits of social and medical sciences has been largely academic. Aims: To outline and critically appraise a utilitarian approach to mental health research that reflects a critical realist perspective. Method: Consideration of the relative utility of differing approaches to illustrative ‘‘psychiatric’’ disorders, and recent policy initiatives. Results: Socially relevant outcomes of Bipolar Affective Disorder are determined by influences that operate independently of the characteristic instability of mood. There is now a highly specific and effective psychological treatment for Panic Disorder. Its benefits are still not fully exploited because of continuing lay and professional focus upon the condition’s social manifestations. Great numbers of people presenting in primary care are unhelpfully caused to adopt the role of ‘‘patient’’ due to practices limiting the professional response to a medical one. Such practices reflect public and professional perceptions of the nature of ‘‘mental health difficulties’’ much more than they do the achievements of medicine. Recent policy-supporting initiatives influencing UK NHS mental health services are much more likely to be supported by social sciences than by medical research. Conclusions: There is considerable scope for a contribution to applied mental health research from frameworks and methodologies that are rooted in a social sciences perspective.

Capturing User Requirements in Medical Device Development: The Role of Ergonomics

Measuring and fulfilling user requirements during medical device development will result in successful products that improve patient safety, improve device effectiveness and reduce product recalls and modifications. Medical device users are an extremely heterogeneous group and for any one device the users may include patients, their carers as well as various healthcare professionals. There are a number of factors that make capturing user requirements for medical device development challenging including the ethical and research governance involved with studying users as well as the inevitable time and financial constraints. Most ergonomics research methods have been developed in response to such practical constraints and a number of these have potential for medical device development. Some are suitable for specific points in the device cycle such as contextual inquiry and ethnography, others, such as usability tests and focus groups may be used throughout development. When designing user research there are a number of factors that may affect the quality of data collected including the sample of users studied, the use of proxies instead of real end-users and the context in which the research is performed. As different methods are effective in identifying different types of data, ideally more than one method should be used at each point in development, however financial and time factors may often constrain this.

MATCH: a new industry-focused approach to medical device development

MATCH (Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare) is a new collaboration in the UK that aims to support the healthcare sector by creating methods to assess the value of medical devices from concept through to mature product. A major aim of MATCH is to encourage the inclusion of the user throughout the product lifecycle in order to achieve devices that truly meet the requirements of their users. A review of the published literature indicates that user requirements are mainly collected during the design and evaluation stage of the product lifecycle whilst other areas, including the concept stage, have less user involvement. Complementing the literature review is an in-depth consultation with the medical device industry, which has identified a number of barriers encountered by companies when attempting to capture user requirements. These will be addressed by a number of case study projects, performed in collaboration with our industrial partners, that will examine the application and utility of different approaches to collecting and analysing data on user requirements. MATCH is focused on providing advice to device developers on how to select and apply methods that have maximum theoretical strength, practical application, cost-effectiveness and likelihood of wide sector acceptance. Feedback will be sought in order to ensure that the needs of the diverse medical device sector are met.