Literature DB >> 8273899

The Australian Incident Monitoring Study. System failure: an analysis of 2000 incident reports.

W B Runciman1, R K Webb, R Lee, R Holland.   

Abstract

Although 70-80% of problems have some component of human error, its overall contribution to many problems may be small; studies of complex systems have revealed that up to 85% are primarily due to deficiencies in the lay-out and processes of the system. The anaesthetist has to operate in a complex system; many problems originate from deficiencies in this system. Information of relevance to system failure was extracted from the first 2000 incidents reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS). A system-based deficiency directly contributed to one-quarter of problems (four-fifths if human factors are included), some aspect of the system minimized the adverse outcome in over half of all cases (four-fifths if human factors are included), and in two-thirds (three-quarters if human factors are included) a system-based strategy would have been helpful; the system was implicated in 90% of all incidents (97% if human factors are included). Regardless of whether or not all human error should be regarded as part of the "system", attempts to modify its incidence and nature have to emanate from the system. AIMS reporting pathways and the organizations involved in developing and implementing strategies to improve the system operate at four levels. Level I involves the use of AIMS reports by hospitals and group practices for audit at a local level. Level II involves AIMS participants sending forms to the AIMS central office; collated information is then sent back to contributors by newsletter. Level III involves interaction between AIMS and the major professional bodies and level IV interaction between AIMS, these bodies and a variety of national and international agencies. Over 100 topics were identified from the AIMS data for consideration at one or more of these levels. AIMS has the potential not only to play a vital practical role in the continued enhancement of the quality of anaesthetic practice, but also to provide a valuable resource for research at the increasingly important interface between human behaviour and complex systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8273899     DOI: 10.1177/0310057X9302100535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anaesth Intensive Care        ISSN: 0310-057X            Impact factor:   1.669


  6 in total

1.  Qualitative versus quantitative research--balancing cost, yield and feasibility. 1993.

Authors:  W B Runciman
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2002-06

2.  Understanding ourselves in the healthcare system: psychological insights.

Authors:  J Williamson; P Barach
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-02

3.  Safety in the operating theatre - Part 2: human error and organisational failure.

Authors:  J Reason
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2005-02

4.  Building Usability Knowledge for Health Information Technology: A Usability-Oriented Analysis of Incident Reports.

Authors:  Romaric Marcilly; Jessica Schiro; Marie Catherine Beuscart-Zéphir; Farah Magrabi
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2019-06-12       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Experiences of health professionals who conducted root cause analyses after undergoing a safety improvement programme.

Authors:  Jeffrey Braithwaite; Mary T Westbrook; Nadine A Mallock; Joanne F Travaglia; Rick A Iedema
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2006-12

6.  [Patient safety: data on the topic and ways out of the crisis].

Authors:  M Rall
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 0.639

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.