PURPOSE: This study identifies the attitudes of participants in the root cause analysis (RCA) process and barriers to it's implementation within one New South Wales area health service. METHOD: Employees and consumer representatives of the former South Western Sydney Area Health Service who participated in an RCA as either a team member or a team leader between December 2002 and October 2003 completed a self-administered survey. RESULTS: Thirty seven of 39 eligible participants completed the survey (response rate 95%). The respondents identified formulation of causal statements, ensuring the causal statements met the "rules of causality" outlined by New South Wales Health, and arranging times for interviews as most difficult. Team leader respondents (n = 7) ranked keeping the team focused, organising the first meeting within 7 days of the incident, and completing the RCA in three 2-hour meetings as barriers to the process. CONCLUSIONS: Training was valued by participants, however greater emphasis on the development of causal statements could be beneficial. Team leaders expressed difficulty in keeping the team focused and meeting the stipulated RCA timeframes, suggesting that additional support for RCA participants may be warranted.
PURPOSE: This study identifies the attitudes of participants in the root cause analysis (RCA) process and barriers to it's implementation within one New South Wales area health service. METHOD: Employees and consumer representatives of the former South Western Sydney Area Health Service who participated in an RCA as either a team member or a team leader between December 2002 and October 2003 completed a self-administered survey. RESULTS: Thirty seven of 39 eligible participants completed the survey (response rate 95%). The respondents identified formulation of causal statements, ensuring the causal statements met the "rules of causality" outlined by New South Wales Health, and arranging times for interviews as most difficult. Team leader respondents (n = 7) ranked keeping the team focused, organising the first meeting within 7 days of the incident, and completing the RCA in three 2-hour meetings as barriers to the process. CONCLUSIONS: Training was valued by participants, however greater emphasis on the development of causal statements could be beneficial. Team leaders expressed difficulty in keeping the team focused and meeting the stipulated RCA timeframes, suggesting that additional support for RCA participants may be warranted.