Did you know that every year in England there are… 50,552 patients with pressure ulcers (category III&IV) like these 13,945 patient falls (with harm) 74,689 patients with catheters & infection

Complaints Audit data Adverse incident reporting Productive ward data Risk assessments Safety Cross Performance data People often say the NHS is data rich……. ……..they’re not joking!

– Reduce Identify what reporting requirements you have to meet and whether this covers what you want to collect – Reuse Think about the overlaps, what can be collected once and reused in another collection mechanism – Recycle All data is useful. Use what you have already collected in retrospective reporting

Complaints Patient derived, view from the patient perspective Qualitative data can be hard to interpret Audit Clear purpose and definition of data collection Difficult to re-use in wider context Adverse incidents Well established reporting process with standards Variation in reporting culture and standards Productive ward Lots of high quality detailWe don’t always record it centrally or consider it useful in the wider context Safety cross Immediate access, simple to use, quick We don’t always record to use after patient has left the ward Performance data Everyone reports it so we can use it for benchmarking Specific definitions may not fit with our requirements Case note review Incorporates details of the whole care episode, not just what happened on our ward Time intensive

– Consider triangulating different data sources to give a broader picture – If you’re going to undertake a new data collection start by carefully considering what you need to answer your question – Design a collection tool that minimises burden and maximises data quality (i.e. keep it simple!)

NHS Safety Thermometer Local Audits Safety Cross Global Trigger Tool National Audits HES Risk adjusted HSMR Readmissions LOS Adverse Events NRLS Complaints / PALS Incident Reporting Administrative Data Point of Care Surveys Case Note Review

AdministrativePoint of CareCase Note ReviewIncident Reporting Pressure Ulcers HES at 0.3% (underreported) No category Prevalence Safety Thermometer 8% Category II – IV Prevalence and incidence Data over time each month Global Trigger Tool?? Local audit carried out yearly by the TVNs – 3% incidence Category III – IV 40 on NRLS (underreported?) Falls No admin dataSafety Cross completed each month – no data over time Safety Thermometer – variation 0 – 2.5% Global Trigger Tool??Falls reported through NRLS 35 falls reported last year Catheters & UTIs No admin dataSafety Thermometer 16% catheters, 2% catheter and UTI Yearly audit of cathetersNo data VTE HES at 1% patients with VTE UNIFY 85% risk assessed Safety Thermometer 68% risk assessed 66% prophylaxis 2% new VTE Global Trigger Tool - Diagnosed with VTE 0.2% New VTEs after surgery reported in NRLS 3 reported last year

AdministrativePoint of CareCase Note ReviewIncident Reporting Pressure Ulcers HES at 0.3% (underreported) No category Prevalence Safety Thermometer 8% Category II – IV Prevalence and incidence Data over time each month Global Trigger Tool ?? Local audit carried out yearly by the TVNs – 3% incidence Category III – IV 40 on NRLS (underreported?) Falls No admin dataSafety Cross completed each month – no data over time Safety Thermometer – variation 0 – 2.5% Global Trigger Tool??Falls reported through NRLS 35 falls reported last year Catheters & UTIs No admin dataSafety Thermometer 16% catheters, 2% catheter and UTI Yearly audit of cathetersNo data VTE HES at 1% patients with VTE UNIFY 85% risk assessed Safety Thermometer 68% risk assessed 66% prophylaxis 2% new VTE Global Trigger Tool?? Diagnosed with VTE 0.2% New VTEs after surgery reported in NRLS 3 reported last year

AdministrativePoint of CareCase Note ReviewIncident Reporting Pressure Ulcers HES at 0.3% (underreported) No category Prevalence Safety Thermometer 8% Category II – IV Prevalence and incidence Data over time each month Global Trigger Tool ?? Local audit carried out yearly by the TVNs – 3% incidence Category III – IV 1% on NRLS (underreported) Data over time Falls No admin dataSafety Cross completed each month – no data over time Safety Thermometer – variation 0 – 2.5% Global Trigger Tool ??Falls reported through NRLS 35 falls reported last year Catheters & UTIs No admin dataSafety Thermometer 16% catheters, 2% catheter and UTI Yearly audit of cathetersNo data VTE HES at 1% patients with VTE UNIFY 85% risk assessed Safety Thermometer 68% risk assessed 66% prophylaxis 2% new VTE Global Trigger Tool - Diagnosed with VTE 0.2% New VTEs after surgery reported in NRLS 3 reported last year

AdministrativePoint of CareCase Note ReviewIncident Reporting Pressure Ulcers HES at 0.3% (underreported) No category Prevalence Safety Thermometer 8% Category II – IV Prevalence and incidence Data over time each month Global Trigger Tool ?? Local audit carried out yearly by the TVNs – 3% incidence Category III – IV 40 on NRLS (underreported?) Falls No admin dataSafety Cross completed each month – no data over time Safety Thermometer – variation 0 – 2.5% Global Trigger Tool ??Falls reported through NRLS 35 falls reported last year Catheters & UTIs No admin dataSafety Thermometer 16% catheters, 2% catheter and UTI Yearly audit of cathetersNo data VTE HES at 1% patients with VTE UNIFY 85% risk assessed Safety Thermometer 68% risk assessed 66% prophylaxis 2% new VTE Global Trigger Tool - Diagnosed with VTE 0.2% New VTEs after surgery reported in NRLS 3 reported last year

AdministrativePoint of CareCase Note ReviewIncident Reporting Pressure Ulcers HES at 0.3% (underreported) No category Prevalence Safety Thermometer 8% Category II – IV Prevalence and incidence Data over time each month Global Trigger Tool ?? Local audit carried out yearly by the TVNs – 3% incidence Category III – IV 40 on NRLS (underreported?) Falls No admin dataSafety Cross completed each month – no data over time Safety Thermometer – variation 0 – 2.5% Global Trigger Tool ??Falls reported through NRLS 35 falls reported last year Catheters & UTIs No admin dataSafety Thermometer 16% catheters, 2% catheter and UTI Yearly audit of cathetersNo data VTE HES at 1% patients with VTE UNIFY 85% risk assessed Safety Thermometer 68% risk assessed 66% prophylaxis 2% new VTE Global Trigger Tool - Diagnosed with VTE 0.2% New VTEs after surgery reported in NRLS 3 reported last year

What measures do you find the most useful for improvement work? Are there any gaps in the data you collect? Have you been able to use data to show improvement?