Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Managing incident systems - Pathology JV/ Mergers and Trust systems

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    24

    Managing incident systems - Pathology JV/ Mergers and Trust systems

    How do joined Pathology depts of separate hospital trusts manage to integrate their incident reporting systems and risk registers for full visibility?

    If an incident potentially affects all of Pathology- then in which trust should this be reported- or do you report in each thereby duplicating everything, and slowly losing the will to live?

    If the incident is only reported at one site- then there is potential for problems to be overlooked at the others. It would be very helpful to know how other sites have managed this aspect of the JVs and mergers.


    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Back in the day when I worked for the NBS, we had (and presumably they still do) a National Corrective Action process whereby a decision was made in the QA depts whether a local incident affected other sites. If it was deemed to be so, then a National Action was raised and faxed to the other centres for action. Before they were all on one QPulse, they would have to be individually logged on the zonal QPulse systems for action.

    So, if you could link your incident reporting systems it would help, otherwise, perhaps a system where the original reporter sends it to other contacts, for them to log, rather than the original reporter logging in on each different system.

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    24
    Thanks Chris. Until we manage to establish a common electronic QMS, which I would have thought would have been a priority with these large networks, then it is more likely these things just won't be linked and there will be very little oversight of cross-site incidents.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2
    Does anyone use the Trust Datix system as their sole reporting system? If not what method do you use to report, and track and trend laboratory non conformities?

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    24
    We use local paper QI forms (easier for staff to report/record and attach documents), details are then entered onto a simple Excel spreadsheet, for tracking of closure , trending and a Datix report filed. It is a little laborious and needs reconsidering when we start using a separate electronic system.... but it works!
    Over the last year I have had Datix reports accidentally deleted or inappropriately closed by system support teams, and it is very easy to delete attached documents from this. Until there is better control, I don't think it is suitable as a stand alone system for recording all QMS errors and some trusts may not even allow low level lab based errors, audit NCs, supplier complaints, recording of recalls etc to be placed onto Datix, though I am sure it has good functionality for trending etc- there would need to be robust procedures in place with the IT/ Risk folk.
    Also, if you go this route you probably need to look into the realms of data security, back-up, recoverability etc and the Trust It team can then have the pleasure of making sure their systems conform to GAMP.
    Last edited by Orr; 27th Oct 2017 at 11:13 PM. Reason: update

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    2
    Thank you.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    3
    We use qpulse which enables actions to be added to an incident for anyone whose is a user in the system. I find it effective as an awareness tool for users with the same equipment, processes etc. though it is important you have a robust process to ensure part of the incident process is to consider impact to other staff groups within the organisation

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •