Volume 14, Issue 3, Pages 97 – 144 (2015)

The Team at Work – The Society for Acute Medicine’s Benchmarking Audit 2014 (SAMBA’14)

Abstract

Background: The Society for Acute Medicine’s Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA) serves as a tool for Acute Medical Units to compare and improve their quality of care.

Aim: To audit the performance of Acute Medical Units against clinical quality indicators, standards by the Royal College of Physicians and Specialist Societies relevant to the practice of Acute Medicine.

Methods: An online survey of unit profiles and staffing levels on the audit day was followed by a 24-hour data collection on Thursday the 19th of June 2014 for all patients seen by the local Acute Medicine teams as part of the general medical take. Patients were followed-up for 72 hours. We reviewed the impact of staffing levels on performance indicators.

Results: 66 Acute Medical Units admitted 2333 patients during the 24-hour period. Compliance with the quality standards of SAM was as follows: 84% of patients had an early warning score recorded within 30 minutes of admission, 81% of patients had been seen by a competent decision maker within four hours and 73% of patients were seen by a consultant physician within the appropriate period of time. Only 56% of patients received a standard of care compatible with all three quality standards. We found no relation between unit characteristics, staffing and performance indicator.

Conclusion: There remains a gap between the standard described by the quality indicators and the performance of Acute Medical Units during a one-day audit.

Please subscribe to see more.
Subscribe
Already a member? Log in here

The Team at Work – The Society for Acute Medicine’s Benchmarking Audit 2014 (SAMBA’14) Read More

Editorial

Many readers will be familiar with the challenges associated with the measurement of quality in acute medicine. The annual Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA) has attempted to map performance of acute medical units (AMUs) against quality standards established by SAM in 2011. The data presented in this autumn’s edition need to be interpreted with some caution – a single weekday in June is not necessarily representative of practice at other times of the year, and the figures are more than one year old, with the 2015 audit data currently being analysed. However the paper contains some interesting points which are worthy of comment. Overall, around 20% of patients waited more than 4 hours from arrival on the AMU before being seen by a ‘competent decision maker’, while more than a third of patients waited longer than the defined standard (8 hours during daytime and 14 hours after 5pm) to see a consultant. It should be noted, however that almost 70% of these patients passed through the Emergency Department (ED) prior to their arrival on the AMU, and many will therefore have already seen a senior ED clinician with a management plan being initiated. It is clearly important that Units who admit significant numbers of patients directly from General Practitioners are recording time delays for this group of patients, who should be subject to the same degree of rigorous prioritisation afforded to patients in the ED. It is also of interest that those patients least likely to fulfil all three of the defined standards were those who arrived on the AMU in the early evening period (5pm-10pm), while patients who arrive after 10pm were most likely to be seen within the appropriate time period. This is not surprising when one considers the way in which arrangements for consultant review are often designed, with morning ‘post take’ ward rounds enabling review of those patients who were admitted overnight. This needs to be addressed – 25% of patients arrived on the AMU during the evening period, and local experience suggests that many of these are patients referred directly by general practitioners. Many units now have a consultant presence on AMU until 8pm and some have extended this further to enable real-time consultant review of this cohort of patients later into the evening.

Editorial Read More

Shopping Basket
Scroll to Top