Outcomes analysis, quality improvement, and patient safety
Investigating the Causes of Adverse Events

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.04.001Get rights and content

Section snippets

Identifying Causal Factors

The conceptual model for evaluating the quality of medical care, proposed by Donabedian in 1966, contains three components of medical care from which to derive information regarding quality: structure, process, and outcomes [11]. The structure of care involves the settings and context of medical care delivery. Individual processes of care—the actions and activities of delivering medical care—can be examined and compared with best known standards of practice. The processes that can readily be

Monitoring

The ideal safety-conscious clinical environment has systems in place to monitor for potential problems so that, when they occur, a prompt response can be mounted, data collected, and hazards neutralized. Protocols and procedures should be implemented to immediately respond to critical events. Crisis management algorithms and simulation exercises with frequent training are important components of risk management for a safety-focused clinical team. When accidents happen, however, this heightened

Root Cause Analysis

An RCA is a formalized, indepth process for investigating an incident with the goal of identifying the most basic factors contributing to error or poor performance. It is an impartial, interdisciplinary approach involving both individual persons uninvolved with the event as well as those who are the most familiar with the situation. By digging deeper at each level of cause and effect using an iterative and systematic approach, basic and contributing causes are surfaced with the ultimate goal of

Common Cause Analysis

RCAs are carried out in response to a single event or a cluster of events. The findings and corrective plans generated from these activities apply only to specific areas, service lines, or work teams, particularly in larger organizations [22]. Unless a higher level view is taken periodically, organizations are not able to synthesize the learning achieved from individual investigations preventing their dissemination to other areas. A “common cause analysis” aggregates the findings identified

Ending Up With a Narrow Set of Facts

Because most people are not trained to consider system failures and neglect to dig beyond proximate causes, it is easy to generate a narrow set of facts that can miss more hidden, systemic contributions to events. Investigations that consider only the actions and omissions of particular persons are incomplete and misleading. The analysis must involve a wide range of sources of information related to the processes or areas to be investigated. The absence of a wider set of inputs, particularly

The Second Victim

In the course of an incident investigation, the emotional impact on team members is quite significant and underappreciated, particularly after serious harm has occurred. Such events and errors cause increased stress, loss of confidence, guilt, anger, reduced job satisfaction, depression, and fear of potential litigation 24, 27, 28. After such an event, those health care providers at the “sharp end” are considered “second victims” (subsequent patients who are harmed by them are “third victims”)

Disclosure

Transparency and disclosure of medical errors and a strategy of prospective risk management in dealing with medical errors is vitally important in the reporting phase of an investigation and may result in a substantial reduction in medical malpractice lawsuits, lower litigation costs, and a more safety-conscious environment. In what is now referred to as communication-and-resolution programs, health systems and liability insurers have encouraged the disclosure of adverse events, proactive

Regulatory Requirements

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the event, there are duties, both from an ethical and regulatory perspective, to report certain types of events to local, state, and other regulatory agencies. This series of requirements, however, is heavily influenced by state law [34]. Currently in the United States, 26 states and the District of Columbia have reporting systems that collect information from hospitals and other facilities about adverse medical events resulting in patient death or

Conclusion

Preventable adverse events in health care are common. Understanding the systemic conditions under which errors occur is vitally important to keeping patients safe, continuous quality improvement, and sound risk management. Incident investigation and causation analysis are important components of an overall strategy to improve patient safety and reduce errors. Surgical teams and their organizations must approach the investigation of these events in a thoughtful and systematic way to understand

Recommended Resources

The Joint Commission. Root Cause Analysis in Health Care: Tools and Techniques. 5th ed. Oak Brook, IL: Joint Commission Resources; 2015.

National Patient Safety Foundation. RCA2: improving root cause analyses and actions to prevent harm. Version 2. January 2016. Available at http://www.npsf.org/?page=rca2&hhsearchterms=%22rca2%22. Accessed April 11, 2017.

VA National Center for Patient Safety. Root cause analysis (RCA) step-by-step guide. Available at //www.patientsafety.va.gov/docs/joe/rca_step_by_step_guide_2_15.pdf

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (37)

  • A.W. Wu et al.

    Effectiveness and efficiency of root cause analysis in medicine

    JAMA

    (2008)
  • K.C. Chung et al.

    Complications in surgery: root cause analysis and preventive measures

    Plast Reconstr Surg

    (2012)
  • The Joint Commission

    Root Cause Analysis in Health Care: Tools and Techniques

    (2015)
  • J.Z. Ayanian et al.

    Donabedian's lasting framework for health care quality

    N Engl J Med

    (2016)
  • D.D. Woods et al.

    Perspectives on human error: hindsight biases and local rationality

  • J.S. Carroll et al.

    Leading organizational learning in health care

    Qual Saf Health Care

    (2002)
  • J.A. Sanchez et al.

    Capturing, reporting, and learning from adverse events

  • VA National Center for Patient Safety. Root cause analysis (RCA) step-by-step guide. Available at...
  • Cited by (16)

    • Professional Society Leadership in Health Care Quality: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Experience

      2019, Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
      Citation Excerpt :

      These concepts have been communicated in a variety of educational formats, including a formal e-learning program for continuing medical education (CME) credit (“Fundamentals of Patient Safety for the Cardiothoracic Surgery Team”); a reference library of articles on patient safety; online videos on selected patient safety topics; a dedicated annual meeting symposium (in 2018, “Cognitive Biases and Errors”); and a recently completed wellness survey of STS members. There has also been an ongoing series of related Annals of Thoracic Surgery articles on such topics as patient safety science in cardiothoracic surgery,93 human factors science,94 error disclosure,95 teamwork and communication,96 adverse event investigation,97 physician burnout,98 and safety culture.99 These many advantages of clinical registries come with a cost, including warehousing and analytics, full-time staff, and the time of many dedicated volunteers.

    • Performance improvement in surgery

      2019, Current Problems in Surgery
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text