希望重于经验?病人和工作人员在Dash审查后的NHS的声音

The BMJ Pub Date : 2025-07-18 DOI:10.1136/bmj.r1514
Graham Martin, Jane O’Hara
{"title":"希望重于经验?病人和工作人员在Dash审查后的NHS的声音","authors":"Graham Martin, Jane O’Hara","doi":"10.1136/bmj.r1514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Penny Dash’s review of patient safety in England has recommended major changes to the organisational landscape.1 National bodies will be abolished or merged, and strategic planning and coordination is to be led by a newly reinvigorated National Quality Board. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) will take on some functions vacated by the agencies being disbanded, while at a local level, NHS trusts and integrated care boards (ICBs) will assume increased responsibility for managing, monitoring, and improving quality and safety, overseen by CQC.1 The issues identified by Dash are real, and few will disagree with her assessment of the current environment. The response to patient safety problems has been the creation of multiple agencies with safety in their remit. They in turn have generated large numbers of poorly coordinated recommendations that represent a huge burden for NHS organisations.23 Scope creep has exacerbated the problem and Dash argues that attention to safety has come at the expense of other aspects of quality yet resulted in little tangible improvement.1 Rationalisation therefore seemed an inevitable …","PeriodicalId":22388,"journal":{"name":"The BMJ","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hope over experience? Patient and staff voice in the NHS after the Dash review\",\"authors\":\"Graham Martin, Jane O’Hara\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmj.r1514\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Penny Dash’s review of patient safety in England has recommended major changes to the organisational landscape.1 National bodies will be abolished or merged, and strategic planning and coordination is to be led by a newly reinvigorated National Quality Board. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) will take on some functions vacated by the agencies being disbanded, while at a local level, NHS trusts and integrated care boards (ICBs) will assume increased responsibility for managing, monitoring, and improving quality and safety, overseen by CQC.1 The issues identified by Dash are real, and few will disagree with her assessment of the current environment. The response to patient safety problems has been the creation of multiple agencies with safety in their remit. They in turn have generated large numbers of poorly coordinated recommendations that represent a huge burden for NHS organisations.23 Scope creep has exacerbated the problem and Dash argues that attention to safety has come at the expense of other aspects of quality yet resulted in little tangible improvement.1 Rationalisation therefore seemed an inevitable …\",\"PeriodicalId\":22388,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The BMJ\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The BMJ\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1514\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The BMJ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1514","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Penny Dash对英国患者安全的回顾建议对组织结构进行重大改革国家机构将被废除或合并,战略规划和协调将由新近恢复活力的国家质量委员会领导。护理质量委员会(CQC)和卫生与社会保障部(DHSC)将承担被解散机构空出的一些职能,而在地方一级,NHS信托机构和综合护理委员会(ICBs)将承担更多的责任,在CQC的监督下管理、监测和提高质量和安全。Dash发现的问题是真实的,很少有人不同意她对当前环境的评估。对患者安全问题的回应是建立了多个将安全纳入其职权范围的机构。他们反过来又产生了大量缺乏协调的建议,给NHS组织带来了巨大的负担范围蔓延加剧了这一问题,达什认为,对安全的关注是以牺牲其他方面的质量为代价的,但却没有带来什么切实的改善因此,合理化似乎是不可避免的……
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hope over experience? Patient and staff voice in the NHS after the Dash review
Penny Dash’s review of patient safety in England has recommended major changes to the organisational landscape.1 National bodies will be abolished or merged, and strategic planning and coordination is to be led by a newly reinvigorated National Quality Board. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) will take on some functions vacated by the agencies being disbanded, while at a local level, NHS trusts and integrated care boards (ICBs) will assume increased responsibility for managing, monitoring, and improving quality and safety, overseen by CQC.1 The issues identified by Dash are real, and few will disagree with her assessment of the current environment. The response to patient safety problems has been the creation of multiple agencies with safety in their remit. They in turn have generated large numbers of poorly coordinated recommendations that represent a huge burden for NHS organisations.23 Scope creep has exacerbated the problem and Dash argues that attention to safety has come at the expense of other aspects of quality yet resulted in little tangible improvement.1 Rationalisation therefore seemed an inevitable …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信