Paper or patient safety?

doi:10.1136/bmj.b4175

Published 12 October 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b4175
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b4175

Letters

Clinical audits

Paper or patient safety?

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Guidelines on preventing venothromboembolism issued by the Departmentof Health in 2007 included documented mandatory risk assessmentfor every hospital patient. In our district general hospitalall adult medical admissions have undergone such a process sinceApril 2009. A risk assessment proforma is completed and thepatient is then assigned a category—not at risk or requiringlow molecular weight heparin or thromboembolus deterrent stockings,or both.

Recently the completion of this proforma has been audited locally.Favourable outcomes included full and early completion of thepaperwork but the prescription of prophylaxis, or indeed itseffective and timely administration, was not evaluated. Thusa patient could have a perfectly documented risk assessmentbut be receiving no clinical benefits. Does this equate to patientsafety or good clinical practice?

Both risk management and audit are important but can compromisetime spent with patients. If they result in improved clinicalpractice and patient . . . [Full text of this article]

Belinda Sandler, SHO, cardiology¹, John M Hounsell, registrar, cardiology¹, Thomas Semple, house officer, cardiology¹

¹ Lister Hospital, Stevenage SG1 4AB

b.sandler@doctors.net.uk