The problem with root cause analysis

Attempts to learn from high-risk industries such as aviation and nuclear power have been a prominent feature of the patient safety movement since the late 1990s. One noteworthy practice adopted from such industries, endorsed by healthcare systems worldwide for the investigation of serious incidents, (1-3) is root cause analysis (RCA). Broadly understood as a method of structured risk identification and management in the aftermath of adverse events, (1) RCA is not a single technique. Rather, it describes a range of approaches and tools drawn from fields including human factors and safety science (4,5) that are used to establish how and why an incident occurred in an attempt to identify how it, and similar problems, might be prevented from happening again.(6) In this article, we propose that RCA does have potential value in healthcare, but it has been widely applied without sufficient attention paid to what makes it work in its contexts of origin, and without adequate customisation for the specifics of healthcare. (7,8) As a result, its potential has remained under-realised (7) and the phenomenon of organisational forgetting (9) remains widespread (Box 1). Here, we identify eight challenges facing the utilisation of RCA in healthcare and offer some proposals on how to improve learning from incidents

How effective are incident reporting systems for improving patient safety? A systematic literature review

Context: Incident reporting systems (IRSs) are used to gather information on patient safety incidents. However, and despite the financial burden they imply, little is known about their effectiveness. This paper reviews systematically the effectiveness of IRSs as a method of improving patient safety through organizational learning. Method: This systematic literature review identified two groups of studies: a) studies comparing the effectiveness of IRSs relative to other methods of error reporting and b) studies examining the effectiveness of IRSs on settings, structures and outcomes in respect of improvements to patient safety. We used thematic analysis to compare the effectiveness of IRSs with other methods and to synthesize what was effective, where and why. Then, to assess the evidence concerning the ability of IRSs to facilitate organizational learning, we analyzed studies using the concepts of single loop and double loop learning. Findings: In total, 43 studies were identified. Eight studies compared IRSs with other methods, while 35 explored the effectiveness of IRSs on settings, structures and outcomes. We did not find strong evidence that IRSs perform better than other methods. We found some evidence of single loop learning, that is, changes to clinical settings or processes as a consequence of learning from IRSs, but little evidence either of improvements to outcomes or of changes to latent managerial factors involved in error production. In addition, there was insubstantial evidence of IRSs enabling double loop learning that is, cultural change or change of mindset. Conclusions: The results indicate IRSs could be more effective if there were explicit criteria for what counts as an incident; they are owned and led by clinical teams rather than centralized hospital departments; and embedded within organizations as part of wider safety programs

The Lantern Vol. 55, No. 2, Spring 1989

• Sitting On a Summer Bench • A Perfect Daughter I Could Never Be • Roots And Wings • Sensai • The Last Three Weeks of August • Grown Up • What Size? • Hidden Colors • Victims • I Listen for Your Voice • Thoughts • In Remembrance of Grandpa • Jesus Christ, Terry • Penance • The Guys Are Driving High • You and Me and Big Ginko • The Good Ole Days of Seventh Grade • Cycles • Leather Upholstery • Chicago Kris in Cairo • Lemonade and Medicine • My Last 7:15 Communionhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/lantern/1134/thumbnail.jp

Mechanical Reliability of Blood Sampling Tubes—Closure and Needle Forces Versus Pullout Risk

Mechanical factors relating to the operational reliability of blood-sampling tubes are discussed. A calculation procedure to determine the risk of premature closure pullout owing to excessive needle withdrawal force is given. Effects of closure/tube/process changes are discussed, and details of test parameters are given.</jats:p