Improved Learning from Patient Safety Incidents – Identification of key lessons learned from incident information in the areas of clinical handover and patient identification

17/03/2008 (1)
Q. Is the interim report (due at the end of phase 1) the only report required for phase 1. I was thinking that the Commission might want a 'mid-way' phase 1 report.

A. Submission of a formal written report during Phase 1 is not required. However as specified in the reporting requirements, the contractor is required to liaise with the Commission on at least a monthly basis to ensure progress against project outcomes and deliverables. A detailed project plan is required for Phase 1, and an indicative project plan for Phase 2.


17/03/2008 (2)
Q. It is not clear if the proposed payment schedule would include 100% at the start of the project, or a proportion at the start (say 75%) and the final payment on delivery of the final report (say 25%).

A. The payment schedule would not involve a payment of 100% at the start of the project. The schedule would be based on the deliverables associated with the project. A proportion of the payment would be provided on acceptance by the Commission of the final report. The tender submission requires a proposed payment schedule for Phase 1 only.


12/03/2008 (1)
Q. The tender discusses ‘clinical handover’ and ‘patient identification’. Does the scope only apply to in-hospital transfers and identification or does it involve cross organizational handovers? Eg emergency services to hospital emergency units?

A. If cross organizational handover material is identified, it should be included.


12/03/2008 (2)
Q. Can you give a broad indication of the budget range expectations for this work?

A. This is not possible, the scope of work lends itself to a number of different price points and while the Commission has a budget for this work, we will review and evaluate submissions based on the price and scope of work proposed.


12/03/2008 (3)
Q. Is there any further information about which State is likely to participate in Phase 1?

A. Refer to 28/02/2008 (5) – the applicant is welcome to indicate a preference for the Phase 1 jurisdiction.


12/03/2008 (4)
Q. We are aware that the quality and format of the data (e.g. paper v data warehouse) will vary between jurisdictions. For Phase 1, can you give an indication of the chosen state’s data e.g. Is it held in a central repository? Is it held in electronic format? Will the data be able to be analyzed off site?

A. The choice of the Phase I jurisdiction is subject to negotiation.


12/03/2008 (5)
Q. Will there be dedicated resources in the chosen jurisdiction to assist us in sourcing/extracting the relevant data?

A. Project costings should assume that if such resources are made available, they will be funded from the project budget.


12/03/2008 (6)
Q. You mention that 'acceptance of the report and processes by the participating jurisdiction' is one of the key success criteria for Phase 1. Do you anticipate any resistance to an external consultant conducting this assessment from the chosen jurisdiction?

A. Refer to 28/02/2008 (7) – Communication and a series of high level in principal approvals have been obtained. You may choose to address the issue of report acceptance in your application.


12/03/2008 (7)
Q. We note that it is the tenderer’s responsibility to arrange appropriate ethical clearances with participating States and Territories. In certain states, this may take some time. Have any preliminary discussions been held by the Commission with the Phase 1 state (and others) to speed this process up?

A. Refer to 28/02/2008 (7) – Communication and a series of high level in principal approvals have been obtained. However, as the RFT states, the successful tenderer will be required to negotiate specific access and clearances. The details of these will be determined by the requirements of the chosen Phase 1 site and the nature of the tender proposal.


12/03/2008 (8)
Q. You mention that the potential for the model used for Phase 1 to be scaled up to additional organisations is on of the key success criteria for Phase 1. Can you provide guidance as to relevant jurisdictional differences that may limit the applicability of the model? How will the private hospital providers impact on the Phase 2 analysis? Will the Commission undertake research and provide information to the Consultant as to the differences between jurisdictions or is this expected to be undertaken by the Consultant?

A. Refer to 28/02/2008 (1) below.


28/02/2008 (1)
Q. According to the Information strategy, work stream 1, the ACSQHC was to research the methods and value of sharing information on clinical incidents and prepare an options paper. Has this been done and is the options paper available or is this project replacing that piece of work?

A. This project forms the first part of that piece of work.


28/02/2008 (2)
Q. The different jurisdictions have varied systems and data definitions, is there information available on what systems are being used, and if not is it expected that there will be a review of systems prior to Phase 1 to ensure the methodology used in the single jurisdiction is transferable and allows aggregation of incident data.

A. Such a review may be required prior to Phase 2, however tenderers that submit methodologies that are likely to be robust for a number of different systems will be preferred.


28/02/2008 (3)
Q. The Sentinel Events report from the AIHW (2007) recommended that data definitions be "harmonised'. Has there been work done based on this and is there information currently available or would this form part of this RFT.

A. This recommendation referred to the definitions of Sentinel events. This has not been considered a priority by the Commission and has not been performed. It would not form a necessary part of this project, but if Phase 2 proceeds it may deliver some further harmonisation recommendations.


28/02/2008 (4)
Q. Would there be a component of recommending an IT system or would it be seen that recommendations are based on current data collection systems in each state.

A. The Commission does not envisage an IT recommendation flowing from this work.


28/02/2008 (5)
Q. Based on the skills and expertise of the successful tender proponent, will they be included or be able to make recommendation in the jurisdiction selection for phase 1.

A. This is subject to negotiation, but the applicant is welcome to indicate a preference for the Phase 1 jurisdiction.


28/02/2008 (6)
Q. The RFT states that the Commission will negotiate access to data from the Private sector, however it is not specified if private hospitals will be included in Phase 1. Is it an expectation that private hospitals in the selected jurisdiction will be included in Phase 1.

A. No.


28/02/2008 (7)
Q. Has there been communication already with the jurisdictions to inform them of the project or would the successful tender proponent be expected to negotiate from scratch for release of data.

A. Communication and a series of high level in principal approvals have been obtained. However, as the RFT states, the successful tenderer will be required to negotiate specific access and clearances.


28/02/2008 (8)
Q. Is it anticipated that site visits to individual reporting hospitals will be undertaken.

A. This is not expected, but could be included in a proposal.