Competition

Competition can help drive improvement up to a point, after which it may perpetuate unnecessary harm.

We’re nurtured in competitive environments from an early age. Throughout school we’re constantly being graded and ranked.

We are conditioned to compete.

When a peer makes a mistake they may be perceived as lesser than us. Further, because we learn about the specific mistake we’re unlikely to make it in the future, standing us above others who do.

If left intact the conditions which allow the mistake may give us a competitive edge.

Instead of improving the system to prevent others making the mistake we may deride colleagues who make it.

‘So someone drew an unknown clear liquid out of a random bowl somewhere and injected into a patient and it’s a chlorhexidine problem? Sounds like poor nursing judgement to me.’

‘Just don’t be bloody lazy. It’s not a difficult job. If you can’t tell the difference between chlorhexidine and anything else you don’t deserve the label of ODP.’

‘If you’re going to take an amp of chlorhex and draw it up into a syringe marked anything else, then you should be bloody struck off. That’s not a mistake you can make.’

‘It’s not the drug, but human error that caused the problem.’

‘We were always expected to read the label in my day.’

‘None of my patients have suffered from any error by me. I don’t make errors.’

Each of these statements, from different healthcare staff, refer to the accidental administration of indistinct chlorhexidine. They focus on the individual who has made the mistake.

Competition in this instance is unhealthy.

A more constructive approach requires collaboration focusing on patients to ensure they receive the best possible care. Remove the unnecessary hazard and patients won’t be harmed by it.

We’re all human – we all make mistakes.

Indistinct chlorhexidine persists in hospitals throughout the world, hundreds have been killed and injured because of it and patients continue to suffer (see here).