What is the relationship between human factors & ergonomics and quality improvement in healthcare?

© 2015 Taylor & Francis.A recent initiative in the National Health Service (NHS, UK) has led to an increased interest in Human Factors & Ergonomics (HFE). As part of initial discussions there have been questions about the similarities and differences between HFE and Quality Improvement (QI).We believe that there are considerable advantages from a more structured relationship between HFE and QI in healthcare and have comparatively mapped a range of dimensions (origins, drivers, philosophy, focus, role and methods). Our conclusion is that HFE in healthcare should use four criteria to maximise the benefits from this opportunity, including the use of HFE methods to design systems, environments, products etc. and the direct involvement of qualified (chartered) HFE professionals

Human factors & ergonomics and quality improvement science: integrating approaches for safety in healthcare

Introduction: In this paper, we will address the important question of how quality improvement science (QIS) and human factors and ergonomics (HFE) can work together to produce safer solutions for healthcare. We suggest that there will be considerable advantages from an integrated approach between the two disciplines and professions which could be achieved in two phases. First, by identifying people trained in HFE and those trained in QIS who understand how to work together and second, by developing opportunities for integrated education and training. To develop this viewpoint we will: Discuss and explore how QIS and HFE could be integrated by building on existing definitions, scope of practice, knowledge, skills, methods, research and expertise in each discipline. Outline opportunities for a longer-term integration through training, and education for healthcare professionals

How well is quality improvement described in the perioperative care literature? A systematic review

Background: Quality improvement (QI) approaches are widely used across health care, but how well they are reported in the academic literature is not clear. A systematic review was conducted to assess the completeness of reporting of QI interventions and techniques in the field of perioperative care. Methods: Searches were conducted using Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and PubMed. Two independent reviewers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) check list, which identifies 12 features of interventions that studies should describe (for example, How: the interventions were delivered [e. g., face to face, internet]), When and how much: duration, dose, intensity), to assign scores for each included article. Articles were also scored against a small number of additional criteria relevant to QI. Results: The search identified 16,103 abstracts from databases and 19 from other sources. Following review, full-text was obtained for 223 articles, 100 of which met the criteria for inclusion. Completeness of reporting of QI in the perioperative care literature was variable. Only one article was judged fully complete against the 11 TIDieR items used. The mean TIDieR score across the 100 included articles was 6.31 (of a maximum 11). More than a third (35%) of the articles scored 5 or lower. Particularly problematic was reporting of fidelity (absent in 74% of articles) and whether any modifications were made to the intervention (absent in 73% of articles). Conclusions: The standard of reporting of quality interventions and QI techniques in surgery is often suboptimal, making it difficult to determine whether an intervention can be replicated and used to deliver a positive effect in another setting. This suggests a need to explore how reporting practices could be improved