IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v51y2000i1p83-91.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical risk and collective competence in the hospital emergency department in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Boreham, N. C.
  • Shea, C. E.
  • Mackway-Jones, K.

Abstract

The hospital emergency department (ED) is a risky environment, often subject to litigation for negligence. Risk is defined as an avoidable increase in the probability of an adverse outcome for a patient. With the aim of identifying the sources of risk, this study carried out participant observation and collected critical incidents in two EDs in the UK for a period of 30 months. Active failures included delay in beginning investigations or treatment, failure to obtain diagnostic information, misinterpretation of diagnostic information and the administration of inappropriate treatment. Three latent conditions underlay these failures: patients' unrestricted access to the ED, cognitive errors by individual members of staff and a strict horizontal and vertical division of labour. An analysis of the incidents resulting from the third latent condition identified a contradiction between the division of labour and working conditions in the ED. The paradigm circumstances under which this contradiction can result in active failures are described. The management of risks arising in this way could be improved by developing a workplace culture in which 'sapiential authority' -- authority derived from experience, special access to information or being at hand in an emergency -- is recognised in addition to authority derived from a formal status. However, as long the contradictions between the division of labour and working conditions remain, accidents should be considered normal events.

Suggested Citation

  • Boreham, N. C. & Shea, C. E. & Mackway-Jones, K., 2000. "Clinical risk and collective competence in the hospital emergency department in the UK," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 83-91, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:1:p:83-91
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00441-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iedema, Rick, 2009. "New approaches to researching patient safety," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1701-1704, December.
    2. Grant, Suzanne & Guthrie, Bruce, 2018. "Between demarcation and discretion: The medical-administrative boundary as a locus of safety in high-volume organisational routines," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 203(C), pages 43-50.
    3. Tracey Stone & Jon Banks & Heather Brant & Joanna Kesten & Emma Redfern & Ann Remmers & Sabi Redwood, 2020. "The introduction of a safety checklist in two UK hospital emergency departments: A qualitative study of implementation and staff use," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7-8), pages 1267-1275, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:1:p:83-91. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.