Kathryn M Kellogg1, Zach Hettinger1, Manish Shah2, Robert L Wears3, Craig R Sellers4, Melissa Squires5, Rollin J Fairbanks1. 1. MedStar Health, MedStar Institute for Innovation, Washington District of Columbia, USA. 2. BerbeeWalsh Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine & Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine/CSRU, University of Florida/Imperial College London, Jacksonville, Florida, USA. 4. University of Rochester School of Nursing, Rochester, New York, USA. 5. Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite over a decade of efforts to reduce the adverse event rate in healthcare, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process used by hospitals in an attempt to reduce adverse event rates; however, the outputs of this process have not been well studied in healthcare. This study aimed to examine the types of solutions proposed in RCAs over an 8-year period at a major academic medical institution. METHODS: All state-reportable adverse events were gathered, and those for which an RCA was performed were analysed. A consensus rating process was used to determine a severity rating for each case. A qualitative approach was used to categorise the types of solutions proposed by the RCA team in each case and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: 302 RCAs were reviewed. The most common event types involved a procedure complication, followed by cardiopulmonary arrest, neurological deficit and retained foreign body. In 106 RCAs, solutions were proposed. A large proportion (38.7%) of RCAs with solutions proposed involved a patient death. Of the 731 proposed solutions, the most common solution types were training (20%), process change (19.6%) and policy reinforcement (15.2%). We found that multiple event types were repeated in the study period, despite repeated RCAs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the most commonly proposed solutions were weaker actions, which were less likely to decrease event recurrence. These findings support recent attempts to improve the RCA process and to develop guidance for the creation of effective and sustainable solutions to be used by RCA teams. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
BACKGROUND: Despite over a decade of efforts to reduce the adverse event rate in healthcare, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process used by hospitals in an attempt to reduce adverse event rates; however, the outputs of this process have not been well studied in healthcare. This study aimed to examine the types of solutions proposed in RCAs over an 8-year period at a major academic medical institution. METHODS: All state-reportable adverse events were gathered, and those for which an RCA was performed were analysed. A consensus rating process was used to determine a severity rating for each case. A qualitative approach was used to categorise the types of solutions proposed by the RCA team in each case and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: 302 RCAs were reviewed. The most common event types involved a procedure complication, followed by cardiopulmonary arrest, neurological deficit and retained foreign body. In 106 RCAs, solutions were proposed. A large proportion (38.7%) of RCAs with solutions proposed involved a patient death. Of the 731 proposed solutions, the most common solution types were training (20%), process change (19.6%) and policy reinforcement (15.2%). We found that multiple event types were repeated in the study period, despite repeated RCAs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the most commonly proposed solutions were weaker actions, which were less likely to decrease event recurrence. These findings support recent attempts to improve the RCA process and to develop guidance for the creation of effective and sustainable solutions to be used by RCA teams. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical error, measurement/epidemiology; Root cause analysis; Significant event analysis, critical incident review
Authors: Marco A Zenati; Kay B Leissner; Suzana Zorca; Lauren Kennedy-Metz; Steven J Yule; Roger D Dias Journal: Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-12-19
Authors: Jimmy Martin-Delgado; Alba Martínez-García; Jesús María Aranaz; José L Valencia-Martín; José Joaquín Mira Journal: Med Princ Pract Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 1.927
Authors: Kathryn A Taylor; David N Durrheim; Tony Merritt; Peter Massey; John Ferguson; Nick Ryan; Carolyn Hullick Journal: BMJ Open Qual Date: 2018-02-07
Authors: Elizabeth Cecil; Samantha Wilkinson; Alex Bottle; Aneez Esmail; Charles Vincent; Paul P Aylin Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 7.035