ArticleBMJ open quality2025
Using Quality Improvement to improve serious incident reporting in the English NHS.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTimely completion of serious incident reports is crucial for patient safety and regulatory compliance. Delays hinder organisational learning and compromise patient outcomes. Between May 2021 and April 2022, East London NHS Foundation Trust (ELFT), a provider of mental health, community health and primary care services to approximately 1.8 million people across London and Bedfordshire, faced a significant backlog of serious incident reports. Completion times averaged 208 days-well beyond the 60-day target set by NHS England at the time.
methodsA quality improvement (QI) initiative employing structured methodologies, including the ELFT Sequence of Improvement, statistical process control, Ishikawa analysis, a driver diagram and plan-do-study-act cycles to diagnose and address process inefficiencies.
interventionsThree main change ideas were tested and implemented: concise reporting templates to streamline documentation, a caseload tracker for real-time monitoring and team escalation meetings to improve communication and accountability.
resultsThese interventions led to a 65% reduction in average completion time, decreasing from 208 days to 74 days. Additionally, staff collaboration and workflow efficiency improved, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, continuous learning and accountability.
conclusionsThis project demonstrates the effectiveness of structured QI methodologies in improving serious incident reporting. The implemented changes are sustainable and provide a scalable model for other healthcare organisations aiming to enhance patient safety and compliance. Future work will focus on embedding these improvements into routine practice and exploring their impact on broader organisational learning.
Indexed as
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.