Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Debate

Safety analysis over time: seven major changes to adverse event investigation

Authors: Charles Vincent, Jane Carthey, Carl Macrae, Rene Amalberti

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Every safety-critical industry devotes considerable time and resource to investigating and analysing accidents, incidents and near misses. The systematic analysis of incidents has greatly expanded our understanding of both the causes and prevention of harm. These methods have been widely employed in healthcare over the last 20 years but are now subject to critique and reassessment. In this paper, we reconsider the purpose and value of incident analysis and methods appropriate to the healthcare of today.

Main text

The primary need for a revised vision of incident analysis is that healthcare itself is changing dramatically. People are living longer, often with multiple co-morbidities which are managed over very long timescales. Our vision of safety analysis needs to expand concomitantly to embrace much longer timescales. Rather than think only in terms of the prevention of specific incidents, we need to consider the balance of benefit, harm and risks over long time periods encompassing the social and psychological impact of healthcare as well as physical effects.
We argued for major changes in our approach to the analysis of safety events: assume that patients and families will be partners in investigation and where possible engage them fully from the beginning, examine much longer time periods and assess contributory factors at different time points in the patient journey, be more proportionate and strategic in analysing safety issues, seek to understand success and recovery as well as failure, consider the workability of clinical processes as well as deviations from them and develop a much more structured and wide-ranging approach to recommendations.

Conclusions

Previous methods of incident analysis were simply adopted and disseminated with little research into the concepts, methods, reliability and outcomes of such analyses. There is a need for significant research and investment in the development of new methods. These changes are profound and will require major adjustments in both practical and cultural terms and research to explore and evaluate the most effective approaches.
Literature
1.
Leveson N. A systems approach to risk management through leading safety indicators. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2015;136:17–34.CrossRef
2.
Leveson NG. Engineering a safer world. Systems thinking applied to safety. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press; 2011.
3.
Hudson P. Process indicators. Managing safety by the numbers. Saf Sci. 2009;47:483–5.CrossRef
4.
Vincent C, Amalberti R. Safer healthcare. Strategies for the real world. London: Springer; 2016.CrossRef
5.
Trbovich P, Shojania KG. Root-cause analysis: swatting at mosquitoes versus draining the swamp. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(5):350–3.PubMed
6.
Rees P, Edwards A, Powell C, Hibbert P, Williams H, Makeham M, et al. Patient safety incidents involving sick children in primary care in England and Wales: a mixed methods analysis. PLoS Med. 2017;14(1):e1002217.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
8.
AW W, Lipshutz AK, Pronovost PJ. Effectiveness and efficiency of root cause analysis in medicine. JAMA. 2008;299(6):685–7.CrossRef
9.
Reason JT. Managing the risks of organisational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1997.
10.
11.
Vincent C, Taylor-Adams S, Chapman EJ, Hewett D, Prior S, Strange P, et al. How to investigate and analyse clinical incidents: clinical risk unit and association of litigation and risk management protocol. Br Med J. 2000;320(7237):777–81.CrossRef
12.
Taylor-Adams S, Vincent C. Systems analysis of clinical incidents: the London protocol. AVMA Med Legal J. 2004;10(6):211–20.
13.
Spath P. Error reduction in health care: a systems approach to improving patient safety. Washington: AHA Press; 1999.
14.
15.
Peerally MF, Carr S, Waring J, Dixon-Woods M. The problem with root cause analysis. BMJ Quality Safety. 2017;26(5):417–22.PubMed
16.
Cronin C. Five years of learning from analysis of clinical occurrences in pediatric care using the London protocol. Healthc Q. 2006;9(Sp):16–21.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Rees P, Edwards A, Panesar S, Powell C, Carter B, Williams H, et al. Safety incidents in the primary care office setting. Pediatrics. 2015;135(6):1–9.CrossRef
18.
Franklin BD, Panesar SS, Vincent C, Donaldson LJ. Identifying systems failures in the pathway to a catastrophic event: an analysis of national incident report data relating to vinca alkaloids. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(9):765–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Lear R, Riga C, Godfrey AD, Falaschetti E, Cheshire NJ, Van Herzeele I, et al. Multicentre observational study of surgical system failures in aortic procedures and their effect on patient outcomes. Br J Surg. 2016:1467–75.
20.
Dean B, Schachter M, Vincent C, Barber N. Causes of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a prospective study. Lancet. 2002;359(9315):1373–8.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kellogg KM, Hettinger Z, Shah M, Wears RL, Sellers CR, Squires M, et al. Our current approach to root cause analysis: is it contributing to our failure to improve patient safety? BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(5):381–7.PubMed
22.
23.
24.
Hutchinson A, Coster JE, Cooper KL, McIntosh A, Walters SJ, Bath PA, et al. Assessing quality of care from hospital case notes: comparison of reliability of two methods. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(6):e2.PubMed
25.
Barker I, Steventon A, Deeny SR. Association between continuity of care in general practice and hospital admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions: cross sectional study of routinely collected, person level data. BMJ. 2017;356.
26.
Commission CQ. Learning from serious incidents in NHS hospitals. 2016.
27.
Leistikow I, Mulder S, Vesseur J, et al. Learning from incidents in healthcare: the journey, not the arrival, matters. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:252–56.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hutchinson A, Coster JE, Cooper KL, Pearson M, McIntosh A, Bath PA. A structured judgement method to enhance mortality case note review: development and evaluation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(12):1032–40.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Harmsen M, Gaal S, van Dulmen S, de Feijter E, Giesen P, Jacobs A. Patient safety in Dutch primary care: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2010;5(50). doi:10.​1186/​1748-5908-5-50.
30.
Gaal S, Verstappen W, Wolters R, Lankveld H, van Weel C, Wensing M. Prevalence and consequences of patient safety incidents in general practice in the Netherlands: a retrospective medical record review study. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Amalberti R, Brami J. ‘Tempos’ management in primary care: a key factor for classifying adverse events, and improving quality and safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21(9):729–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Brami J, Amalberti R, Wensing M. Patient safety and the control of time in primary care: a review of the French tempos framework by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract. 2015;21(Suppl):45–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Lang A, Edwards N, Fleiszer A. Safety in home care: a broadened perspective of patient safety. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(2):130–5.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lang S, Velasco Garrido M, Heintze C. Patients’ views of adverse events in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review to assess methods and the content of what patients consider to be adverse events. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17:6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
36.
Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Weingart SN, Epstein AM, David-Kasdan J, Feibelmann S, et al. Comparing patient-reported hospital adverse events with medical record review: do patients know something that hospitals do not? Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(2):100–8.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Davis R, Sevdalis N, Vincent C. Patient involvement in patient safety: how willing are patients to participate? BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(1):108–14.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Leistikow I, Mulder S, Vesseur J, Robben P. Learning from incidents in healthcare: the journey, not the arrival, matters. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;(3):252–56. doi:10.​1136/​bmjqs-2015-004853.
39.
40.
Gallagher TH, Studdert D, Levinson W. Disclosing harmful medical errors to patients. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(26):2713–9.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Mello MM, Boothman RC, McDonald T, Driver J, Lembitz A, Bouwmeester D, et al. Communication-and-resolution programs: the challenges and lessons learned from six early adopters. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(1):20–9.CrossRef
42.
Pham JC, Hoffman C, Popescu I, Ijagbemi OM, Carson KA. A tool for the concise analysis of patient safety incidents. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 42(1):AP1–3.
43.
Macrae C. Close calls. Managing risk and resilience in airline flight safety. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2014.
44.
45.
Vincent C, Burnett S, Carthey J. Safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a framework to guide clinical teams and healthcare organisations in maintaining safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(8):670–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Li J, Boulanger B, Norton J, Yates A, Swartz CH, Smith A, et al. “SWARMing” to improve patient care: a novel approach to root cause analysis. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2015;41(11):494–AP3.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Duchscherer C, Davies J. Systematic systems analysis: a practical approach to patient safety reviews. Calgary: Health Quality Council of Alberta; 2012.
48.
49.
Braithwaite J, Wears RL, Hollnagel E. Resilient health care: turning patient safety on its head. Int J Qual Health Care. 2015;27(5):418–20.CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
Kerckhoffs MC, van der Sluijs AF, Binnekade JM, Dongelmans DA. Improving patient safety in the ICU by prospective identification of missing safety barriers using the bow-tie prospective risk analysis model. J Patient Saf. 2013;9(3):154–9.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Ashley L, Armitage G. Failure mode and effects analysis: an empirical comparison of failure mode scoring procedures. J Patient Saf. 2010;6(4):210–5.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Burgmeier J. Failure mode and effect analysis: an application in reducing risk in blood transfusion. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(6):331–9.PubMed
54.
Cook RI, Wreathall J, Smith A, Cronin DC, Rivero O, Harland RC, et al. Probabilistic risk assessment of accidental ABO-incompatible thoracic organ transplantation before and after 2003. Transplantation. 2007;84(12):1602–9.CrossRefPubMed
55.
McNally KM, Page MA, Sunderland B. Failure-mode and effects analysis in improving a drug distribution system. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1997;54(2):171–7.PubMed
56.
Barnard D, Dumkee M, Bains B, Gallivan B. Implementing a good catch program in an integrated health system. Healthc Q. 2006;9 Spec No:22-7.
57.
Cook RI, Woods DD, Miller CA. A tale of two stories: contrasting views of patient safety. Chicago: US National Patient Safety Foundation; 1998.
58.
Turner BA. Man-made disasters. London: Wykeham Publications; 1978.
59.
Weick K, Sutcliffe K. Managing the unexpected. Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass; 2001.
60.
Wilson KA, Burke CS, Priest HA, Salas E. Promoting health care safety through training high reliability teams. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(4):303–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Sutcliffe KM, Paine L, Pronovost PJ. Re-examining high reliability: actively organising for safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(3):248–51.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Macrae C. Making risks visible: identifying and interpreting threats to airline flight safety. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2009;82:273–93.CrossRef
63.
Carthey J, Walker S, Deelchand V, Vincent C, Griffiths W. Breaking the rules: understanding non-compliance with policies and guidelines. Br Med J. 2011:343. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​d5283.
64.
Braithwaite J, Westbrook MT. Time spent by health managers in two cultures on work pursuits: real time, ideal time and activities’ importance. Int J Health Plann Manag. 2011;26(1):56–69.CrossRef
65.
Amalberti R, Hourlier S. Human error reduction strategies in health care. In: Carayon P, editor. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in healthcare and patient safety; 2005.
66.
Cafazzo JA, Trbovich PL, Cassano-Piche A, Chagpar A, Rossos PG, Vicente KJ, et al. Human factors perspectives on a systemic approach to ensuring a safer medication delivery process. Healthc Q. 2009;12 Spec No Patient:70-4.
67.
Mayer J, Mooney B, Gundlapalli A, Harbarth S, Stoddard G, et al. Dissemination and sustainability of a hospital-wide hand hygiene program emphasizing positive reinforcement. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(1):59–66.CrossRefPubMed
68.
Novoa AM, Pi-Sunyer T, Sala M, Molins E, Castells X. Evaluation of hand hygiene adherence in a tertiary hospital. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(10):676–83.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Pittet D, Hugonnet S, Harbarth S. Effectiveness of a hospital-wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. Infection control programme. Lancet. 2000;356(9238):1307–12.
70.
Pittet D, Simon A, Hugonnet S, Pessoa-Silva C, Sauvan V, Perneger TV. Hand hygiene among physicians: performance, beliefs, and perceptions. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(1):1–8.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Taylor N, Lawton R, Slater B, Foy R. The demonstration of a theory-based approach to the design of localized patient safety interventions. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):123.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
72.
Mills PD, Neily J, Luan D, Stalhandske E, Weeks WB. Using aggregate root cause analysis to reduce falls and related injuries. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(1):21–31.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Taitz J, Genn K, Brooks V, Ross D, Ryan K, Shumack B, et al. System-wide learning from root cause analysis: a report from the New South Wales Root Cause Analysis Review Committee. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;(6):e63. doi:10.​1136/​qshc.​2008.​032144.
74.
75.
Amalberti R. The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Saf Sci. 2001;37(2–3):109–26.CrossRef
76.
77.
Sheikh A, Sood HS, Bates DW. Leveraging health information technology to achieve the “triple aim” of healthcare reform. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(4):849–56.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Safety analysis over time: seven major changes to adverse event investigation
Authors
Charles Vincent
Jane Carthey
Carl Macrae
Rene Amalberti
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0695-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Implementation Science 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Preliminary testing of the reliability and feasibility of SAGE: a system to measure and score engagement with and use of research in health policies and programs

Research

Number and type of guideline implementation tools varies by guideline, clinical condition, country of origin, and type of developer organization: content analysis of guidelines

Research

Making sense of complexity in context and implementation: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework

Research

Process evaluation of the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) trial: active and less active ingredients of a multi-component complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing

Systematic review

Describing knowledge encounters in healthcare: a mixed studies systematic review and development of a classification

Research

Broadening measures of success: results of a behavioral health translational research training program