ArticleBMJ quality improvement reports2014
A standardised storage solution for venepuncture/cannulation equipment could save an NHS hospital the equivalent of a whole junior doctor.
Article in BMJ quality improvement reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reducing Time Taken to Gather Equipment for Venepuncture and Cannulation: A Quality Improvement Project.Cureus · 2024Article
- Improving ward level efficiency using a modified treatment room layout according to Lean methodologies.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Empowering junior doctors: a qualitative study of a QI programme in South West England.Postgraduate medical journal · 2018Article
- Improving time efficiency gathering equipment in the treatment room.BMJ open quality · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Junior doctors, nursing staff, and phlebotomists spend a large proportion of their time taking blood samples and siting (venous) cannulae. Approximately 350 blood samples are taken daily across 25 wards at the Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust. There is no standard storage solution for venepuncture or cannulation equipment. On-call junior doctors cover most of the hospital's wards. Time is wasted locating essential equipment on unfamiliar wards and nurses are frequently interrupted to assist. These delays can compromise patient safety in emergencies as well as contributing to a source of daily inefficiency. Junior doctors were timed collecting equipment needed for venepuncture and cannulation on unfamiliar wards. Initial results suggested large variation between timings on different wards. The medical admissions unit (MAU), which organises items for venepuncture and cannulation on a single trolley, was 4 times quicker than the mean of all other wards. MAU mean time 21.0s vs. Non-standardised wards mean time 103.0s (p<0.0001). Estimates suggest approximately 47 hours per week (the equivalent of a fulltime doctor) could be saved by implementing a standard trust-wide storage solution. We set out to introduce the MAU trolley format to all adult inpatient wards. All ward managers agreed to implement the trolley. 18 wards (72% of adult inpatient wards) already possessed the 'MAU style' trolley, which we standardised using an easy-to-follow inventory and laminated draw inlays. Feedback was very positive from doctors and ward staff alike. We repeated timings to validate the change and successfully presented a business case to senior management for a further 10 trolleys (£3623.78) for full adult inpatient ward coverage. As junior doctors, we identified a common problem, tested solutions, and made early simple affordable changes. Initial work helped us present a compelling case for patient safety and efficiency improvements, releasing money to implement modest trust-wide quality improvement changes.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.