he prospect of improved clinical outcomes and more efficient health systems has fueled a rapid rise in the development and evaluation of AI systems over the last decade. Because most AI systems within healthcare are complex interventions designed as clinical decision support systems, rather than autonomous agents, the interactions among the AI systems, their users and the implementation environments are defining components of the AI interventions' overall potential effectiveness. Therefore, bringing AI systems from mathematical performance to clinical utility needs an adapted, stepwise implementation and evaluation pathway, addressing the complexity of this collaboration between two independent forms of intelligence, beyond measures of effectiveness alone 1 . Despite indications that some AI-based algorithms now match the accuracy of human experts within preclinical in silico studies 2 , there

What prevents the delivery of effective, high quality and safe health care in the National Health Service (NHS) in England? This paper presents 760 challenges which 330 NHS staff reported as preventing the delivery of effective, high quality and safe care. Some problems have been known for over 25 years (staff shortages, finance and patient complexity) but other challenges raise questions about the commitment of the NHS to patient and staff safety. Practitioner Summary: 760 challenges to the quality, effectiveness and safety of health care were identified at Human Factors/Ergonomics taster workshops in England. These are used to challenge health care providers to think about a Human Factors Integration (HFI systems) approach for safety, well-being and performance for all people involved in providing and receiving health care.

Exercise is often suggested as a means of reducing the effects of osteoporosis in post-

The Supported Champions model allowed all surgical teams to reduce delay for septic patients by more than 50%, using distinct Quality Improvement strategies to address local issues. Improvement was implemented in 4 diverse settings with a quarter of the level of expert input previously used in a single hospital.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Practical methods for facilitating process improvement are needed to support high quality, safe care. How best to specify (identify and define) process improvements – the changes that need to be made in a healthcare process – remains a key question. Methods for doing so collaboratively, rapidly and remotely offer much potential, but are under-developed. We propose an approach for engaging diverse stakeholders remotely in a consensus-building exercise to help specify improvements in a healthcare process, and we illustrate the approach in a case study. Methods Organised in a five-step framework, our proposed approach is informed by a participatory ethos, crowdsourcing and consensus-building methods: (1) define scope and objective of the process improvement; (2) produce a draft or prototype of the proposed process improvement specification; (3) identify participant recruitment strategy; (4) design and conduct a remote consensus-building exercise; (5) produce a final specification of the process improvement in light of learning from the exercise. We tested the approach in a case study that sought to specify process improvements for the management of obstetric emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a brief video showing a process for managing a post-partum haemorrhage in women with COVID-19 to elicit recommendations on how the process could be improved. Two Delphi rounds were then conducted to reach consensus. Results We gathered views from 105 participants, with a background in maternity care (n = 36), infection prevention and control (n = 17), or human factors (n = 52). The participants initially generated 818 recommendations for how to improve the process illustrated in the video, which we synthesised into a set of 22 recommendations. The consensus-building exercise yielded a final set of 16 recommendations. These were used to inform the specification of process improvements for managing the obstetric emergency and develop supporting resources, including an updated video. Conclusions The proposed methodological approach enabled the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to be captured and mobilised to specify process improvements in an area of pressing service need. This approach has the potential to address current challenges in process improvement, but will require further evaluation.

IntroductionPostpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is an obstetric emergency requiring prompt and accurate response. PPH emergency kits containing equipment and medications can facilitate this kind of intervention, but their design and contents vary, potentially introducing risk of confusion or delay. Designs may be suboptimal, and relying on localised kit contents may result in supply chain costs, increased waste and missed opportunities for economies of scale. This study aims to characterise contextual influences on current practice in relation to PPH kits and to describe the range of kits currently employed in UK maternity units.Methods and analysisThis mixed-methods study comprises two phases. The first will use field observations and semistructured interviews to research PPH kits in a small number (3–5) of maternity units that will be selected to represent diversity. Analysis will be conducted both using an established human factors and ergonomics framework and using the constant comparative method for qualitative data analysis. The second phase will use a research and development platform (Thiscovery) to conduct a crowdsourced photography-based audit of PPH kits currently in use in the UK. Participants will tag images to indicate which objects have been photographed. Quantitative analysis will report the frequency of inclusion of each item in kits and the content differences between kit and unit types. All maternity units in the UK will be invited to take part, with additional targeted recruitment strategies used, if necessary, to ensure that the final sample includes different maternity unit types, sizes and PPH kit types. Study results will inform future work to develop consensus on effective PPH kit designs.Ethics and disseminationApproval has been received from the UK Health Research Authority (project ID 274147). Study results will be reported through the research institute’s website, presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.