The Learning from Mistakes League technical note – This note explains how the League was constructed. Trusts are initially ranked according to their scores in relation to three ‘key in the staff survey that are strongly relevant to reporting and findings’ learning to produce a ranking and a division into four categories: Key Finding 30: Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for reporting errors, near misses and incidents (Scale 0 5) – Key Finding 31: Staff confidence and security in reporting unsafe clinical practice (Scale 0-5 ) Key Finding 7: Percentage of staff able to contribute towards improvements at work. These scores are then combined into a single score. We then took this ranking and then adjust the categorisation of Trusts according to whether or not there are for negative ‘flags’ against them issues with reporting to NRLS, poor performance in respect of bullying and harassment or if they are in the bottom 20% for any of the key findings set out above. Specifically this means that the four categories are as ‘earned’ follows: Positioning Flags Outstanding levels of Top 20% individually No red Flags on KF 7,30 and 31 openness and transparency Good levels of openness Not top 20% on all of No red Flags and transparency KF 7,30 and 31 Significant concerns about NA 1 or 2 red flags. openness and transparency A poor reporting culture NA 3 or more red flags The different are earned as follows: ‘flags’ If a trust has any number of risk/ elevated risks in the NRLS system NRLS they receive 1 red flag. Key Finding 30: Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for reporting If a trust is in the lowest 20% of errors, near misses and incidents trusts they receive 1 red flag Key Finding 31: Staff confidence and security in reporting unsafe clinical If a trust is in the lowest 20% of practice clinical practice trusts they receive 1 red flag Key Finding 7: Percentage of staff able If a trust is in the lowest 20% of to contribute towards improvements at trusts they receive 1 red flag
The Learning from Mistakes League – technical note This note explains how the League was constructed. Trusts are initially ranked according to their scores in relation to three ‘key findings’ in the staff survey that are strongly relevant to reporting and learning to produce a ranking and a division into four categories: Key Finding 30: Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for reporting errors, near misses and incidents (Scale 0 – 5) Key Finding 31: Staff confidence and security in reporting unsafe clinical practice (Scale 0-5 ) Key Finding 7: Percentage of staff able to contribute towards improvements at work. These scores are then combined into a single score. We then took this ranking and then adjust the categorisation of Trusts according to whether or not there are negative ‘flags’ against them for issues with reporting to NRLS, poor performance in respect of bullying and harassment or if they are in the bottom 20% for any of the key findings set out above. Specifically this means that the four categories are ‘earned’ as follows: Positioning Flags Outstanding levels of openness and transparency Top 20% individually on KF 7,30 and 31 No red Flags Good levels of openness and transparency Not top 20% on all of KF 7,30 and 31 No red Flags Significant concerns about openness and transparency NA 1 or 2 red flags. A poor reporting culture NA 3 or more red flags The different ‘flags’ are earned as follows: NRLS If a trust has any number of risk/ elevated risks in the NRLS system they receive 1 red flag. Key Finding 30: Fairness and effectiveness of procedures for reporting errors, near misses and incidents If a trust is in the lowest 20% of trusts they receive 1 red flag Key Finding 31: Staff confidence and security in reporting unsafe clinical practice clinical practice If a trust is in the lowest 20% of trusts they receive 1 red flag Key Finding 7: Percentage of staff able to contribute towards improvements at If a trust is in the lowest 20% of trusts they receive 1 red flag
8i_Learning_from_Mistakes_League_cover_note_March_2016.docx