 |
Medication Safety Officers Society 4100 Members Strong A society of healthcare professionals dedicated to improving medication safety in healthcare organizations |
Healthcare systems worldwide have for decades sought to prioritise prompt diagnosis of cancer as a means to improve outcomes. The gatekeeping role of general practitioners (GPs) that restricts access to testing and referral,1 along with their relatively lower propensity to use diagnostic tests,2 has been offered as partial explanations for the UK’s consistently poor performance in cancer compared with other high-income countries.3
In this issue of BMJ Quality & Safety, Akter and colleagues examined primary care investigations prior to a cancer diagnosis using data on 53 252 patients and 1868 general practices from the 2018 English National Cancer Diagnostic Audit.4 Grouping tests into four categories (any investigation, blood tests, imaging and endoscopy), the study demonstrated large variation in use of tests in general practice prior to diagnosis with cancer. Recorded characteristics of practices accounted for only a small proportion of this variation,...
The significant adverse consequences of diagnostic errors are well established.1 2 Across clinical settings and study methods, diagnostic adverse events often lead to serious permanent disability or death and are frequently deemed preventable.3–5 In malpractice claims, diagnostic adverse events consistently account for more total serious harms than any other individual type of medical error,5 6 a finding supported by large, population-based estimates of total serious misdiagnosis-related harms.2 Despite this, they generally go unrecognised, unmeasured and unmonitored, causing the US National Academy of Medicine to label diagnostic errors as ‘a blind spot’ for healthcare delivery systems.1
Diagnostic errors have been described as ‘the bottom of the iceberg’ of patient safety. This analogy is intended to connote both their enormous impact and their unmeasured, hidden nature relative to more visible errors such as...
In this issue of the journal, the article ‘Developing the Allied Health Professionals workforce within mental health, learning disability, and autism inpatient services: Rapid review of learning from quality and safety incidents’ by Wilson and colleagues1 reviews materials on safety incidents in England published between 2014 and 2024, with a focus on the contribution of allied health professionals. In the context of this study, NHS England’s definition of ‘allied health professionals’ (AHPs) was used, namely the 14 registerable professions of art therapists (art/music/drama), chiropodists/podiatrists, dietitians, occupational therapists, operating department practitioners, orthoptists, osteopaths, paramedics, physiotherapists, prosthetists/orthotists, radiographers and speech and language therapists.1 The review largely considers more extreme forms of harm, such as death (including homicide and suicide), abuse by staff and self-harm.
In this editorial, we take a reflective stance informed by critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis concerns itself with the use of language...
