Literature DB >> 29346587

Are root cause analyses recommendations effective and sustainable? An observational study.

Peter D Hibbert1,2,3, Matthew J W Thomas4, Anita Deakin3, William B Runciman1,2,3, Jeffrey Braithwaite1, Stephanie Lomax5, Jonathan Prescott5, Glenda Gorrie5, Amy Szczygielski6, Tanja Surwald6, Catherine Fraser5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the strength of root cause analysis (RCA) recommendations and their perceived levels of effectiveness and sustainability.
DESIGN: All RCAs related to sentinel events (SEs) undertaken between the years 2010 and 2015 in the public health system in Victoria, Australia were analysed. The type and strength of each recommendation in the RCA reports were coded by an expert patient safety classifier using the US Department of Veteran Affairs type and strength criteria. PARTICIPANTS AND
SETTING: Thirty-six public health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion of RCA recommendations which were classified as 'strong' (more likely to be effective and sustainable), 'medium' (possibly effective and sustainable) or 'weak' (less likely to be effective and sustainable).
RESULTS: There were 227 RCAs in the period of study. In these RCAs, 1137 recommendations were made. Of these 8% were 'strong', 44% 'medium' and 48% were 'weak'. In 31 RCAs, or nearly 15%, only weak recommendations were made. In 24 (11%) RCAs five or more weak recommendations were made. In 165 (72%) RCAs no strong recommendations were made. The most frequent recommendation types were reviewing or enhancing a policy/guideline/documentation, and training and education.
CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of recommendations arising from RCAs in Victoria are 'strong'. This suggests that insights from the majority of RCAs are not likely to inform practice or process improvements. Suggested improvements include more human factors expertise and independence in investigations, more extensive application of existing tools that assist teams to prioritize recommendations that are likely to be effective, and greater use of observational and simulation techniques to understand the underlying systems factors. Time spent in repeatedly investigating similar incidents may be better spent aggregating and thematically analysing existing sources of information about patient safety.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29346587     DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx181

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care        ISSN: 1353-4505            Impact factor:   2.038


  10 in total

1.  Beyond the corrective action hierarchy: A systems approach to organizational change.

Authors:  Laura J Wood; Douglas A Wiegmann
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2020-09-23       Impact factor: 2.038

2.  How Much of Root Cause Analysis Translates into Improved Patient Safety: A Systematic Review.

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

3.  CORR Insights®: What is the Accuracy and Reliability of the Peritubercle Lucency Sign on Radiographs for Early Diagnosis of Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis Compared With MRI as the Gold Standard?

Authors:  Kit M Song
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 4.755

Review 4.  Our first review: an evaluation of effectiveness of root cause analysis recommendations in Hong Kong public hospitals.

Authors:  Yick Ting A Kwok; Alastair Py Mah; Katherine Mc Pang
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Review of alternatives to root cause analysis: developing a robust system for incident report analysis.

Authors:  Gregory Hagley; Peter D Mills; Bradley V Watts; Albert W Wu
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2019-08-01

6.  The patient died: What about involvement in the investigation process?

Authors:  Siri Wiig; Peter D Hibbert; Jeffrey Braithwaite
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 2.038

7.  Prioritising recommendations following analyses of adverse events in healthcare: a systematic review.

Authors:  Kelly Bos; Maarten J van der Laan; Dave A Dongelmans
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2020-10

8.  Evaluating a system-wide, safety investigation in healthcare course in Norway: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Cecilie Haraldseid-Driftland; Carl Macrae; Veslemøy Guise; Lene Schibevaag; Janne Gro Alsvik; Adriana Rosenberg; Siri Wiig
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  The next step in learning from sentinel events in healthcare.

Authors:  Kelly Bos; Dave A Dongelmans; Sjoerd Greuters; Gert-Jan Kamps; Maarten J van der Laan
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2020-02

10.  Using human factors and ergonomics principles to prevent inpatient falls.

Authors:  Yick-Ting Kwok; Ming-Sang Lam
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2022-03
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.