TY - JOUR T1 - Multidisciplinary centres for safety and quality improvement: learning from climate change science JF - BMJ Quality & Safety JO - BMJ Qual Saf SP - i73 LP - i78 DO - 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.047985 VL - 20 IS - Suppl 1 AU - Charles Vincent AU - Paul Batalden AU - Frank Davidoff Y1 - 2011/04/01 UR - http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/20/Suppl_1/i73.abstract N2 - Effective improvement and research rely on sustained multidisciplinary collaboration, but few examples are available of centres with the broad range of disciplines and practical experience that are needed to sustain long-term improvement in healthcare quality and safety. In a number of respects, the parlous state of the quality and safety of medical care resembles the problem of climate change. Both constitute a profoundly serious man-made threat to the public good which have until recently been both ignored and denied but are increasingly being recognised, taken seriously and acted on. Among the most interesting and important responses to the challenge of climate change has been the creation of Centres of Climate Change in which experts from multiple diverse disciplines are brought together to tackle the problem. Such centres, while science-based, express their vision in solid pragmatic terms and embrace policy, public engagement and education as essential components of that vision. Cross-discipline collaboration has unfortunately not achieved the same effectiveness or visibility in healthcare quality and safety as it has in the area of climate change. The authors argue that there is a need to create multidisciplinary centres in healthcare to accelerate the improvement of safety and quality, and provide the necessary theoretical and empirical foundations. Such centres would draw on disciplines such as epidemiology, statistics and relevant clinical disciplines but equally from psychology, engineering, ergonomics, sociology, economics, organisational development in addition to engaging with patients and citizens and leaders with practical experience of improvement in the field. In this paper, we address some of the pragmatic challenges of creating such centres and consider how the right groups and networks of researchers and practitioners might be assembled. ER -