Filters
Filters apply to every chart and metric on this page.
Episodes
24
Included in current view
Overall compliance
89.7%
Target ≥ 90%
Criteria below standard
8
of 28 criteria
Estimated bed days affected
46
Indicative only, from recorded LOS impact
Requested in time
75%
Criterion 3
Completed in time
33.3%
Investigation performed
Result reviewed in time
70.8%
Clinical team review
Result actioned in time
79.2%
Where action required
Delay stage
Where in the diagnostic journey the delay occurred.
Pareto of primary delay reasons
Most frequent reasons and cumulative share.
Compliance by ward / location
Criterion compliance grouped by location.
Compliance by specialty
Variation between specialties.
Investigation group
Which investigations are most often delayed.
Impact on length of stay
Recorded discharge and length-of-stay impact.
Impact on management
Effect of the delay on clinical decision-making.
Run chart — compliance over time
Weekly compliance and safety concerns.
Criterion-level compliance
Yes and No responses only; Not applicable and Unable to determine excluded.
| Criterion | Yes | No | Excluded | Compliance | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical indication for the investigation was documented. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
| Investigation urgency or priority was documented. | 23 | 1 | 0 | 95.8% | Met |
| Investigation was requested within the locally expected timeframe after it became clinically indicated. | 18 | 6 | 0 | 75% | Below |
| Investigation request was complete and suitable for acceptance, vetting or scheduling. | 22 | 2 | 0 | 91.7% | Met |
| Investigation was accepted, vetted, triaged or protocolled within local expected timeframe where required. | 22 | 2 | 0 | 91.7% | Met |
| Investigation was performed or sample was taken within the locally expected timeframe. | 8 | 16 | 0 | 33.3% | Below |
| Result was available within the locally expected timeframe. | 23 | 1 | 0 | 95.8% | Met |
| Result was reviewed by the clinical team within the locally expected timeframe. | 19 | 5 | 0 | 79.2% | Below |
| Result was actioned within the locally expected timeframe where action was required. | 23 | 1 | 0 | 95.8% | Met |
| Abnormal or clinically significant result was escalated where required. | 23 | 1 | 0 | 95.8% | Met |
| Delay stage was identifiable from the record. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
| Reason for delay was documented where applicable. | 21 | 2 | 1 | 91.3% | Met |
| Interim clinical management plan was documented while awaiting the investigation where relevant. | 22 | 2 | 0 | 91.7% | Met |
| Alternative investigation or pathway was considered where appropriate. | 21 | 3 | 0 | 87.5% | Below |
| Outpatient, ambulatory, planned return or community diagnostic option was considered where the patient was otherwise discharge ready and this was safe. | 4 | 7 | 13 | 36.4% | Below |
| Criteria-to-reside or discharge readiness impact was documented where relevant. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
| Expected discharge date was reviewed or updated where the investigation affected discharge. | 23 | 1 | 0 | 95.8% | Met |
| Impact on diagnosis was documented or inferable. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
| Impact on treatment decision was documented or inferable. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
| Impact on discharge or length of stay was documented or inferable. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
| Investigation delay was escalated according to local policy where escalation criteria were met. | 15 | 8 | 1 | 65.2% | Below |
| Diagnostic service, senior clinician or specialist team was contacted where required. | 21 | 3 | 0 | 87.5% | Below |
| Follow-up plan was documented where investigation was outstanding at discharge or converted to outpatient / planned return. | 16 | 1 | 7 | 94.1% | Met |
| Discharge summary included outstanding investigation, result, action or follow-up where relevant. | 22 | 1 | 1 | 95.7% | Met |
| Patient was informed about delayed investigation or follow-up where appropriate. | 21 | 3 | 0 | 87.5% | Below |
| Safety concern was identified and actioned where investigation delay created clinical risk. | 23 | 1 | 0 | 95.8% | Met |
| Documentation was clear enough for another clinician or coordinator to understand the investigation status, delay reason, owner and next action. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
| Any delayed-investigation-related patient safety concern was escalated or actioned where identified. | 24 | 0 | 0 | 100% | Met |
Safety concerns
5 episode(s) in the current view recorded a delayed-investigation safety concern. Confirm each has been escalated through local incident reporting.
Improvement opportunities
Lowest-performing criteria in the current view.
- • Investigation was performed or sample was taken within the locally expected timeframe.
- • Outpatient, ambulatory, planned return or community diagnostic option was considered where the patient was otherwise discharge ready and this was safe.
- • Investigation delay was escalated according to local policy where escalation criteria were met.
- • Investigation was requested within the locally expected timeframe after it became clinically indicated.
- • Result was reviewed by the clinical team within the locally expected timeframe.
- • Alternative investigation or pathway was considered where appropriate.