Beginnings

R. Wears, K. Sutcliffe
{"title":"Beginnings","authors":"R. Wears, K. Sutcliffe","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190271268.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The To Err is Human report rests upon a series of historical episodes—the early development of safety thinking in healthcare, the evolution of safety thinking in the safety sciences, and accumulating stories of personal suffering and tragedy experiences by patients. Concerns about the safety of healthcare date at least as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Early efforts at improving safety appeared sporadically in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but these were isolated and not sustained. Malpractice concerns were also entangled with safety, and the first malpractice crisis in the United States came about due to advances, rather than deficiencies, in care. Public and governmental interest in safety more generally developed out of railway accidents in the nineteenth century. Notions of accidents evolved over time, moving from accident proneness to the domino model, to more complex models such as Reason’s Swiss cheese model. Libby Zion's death results in New York state legislation regulating medical trainees’ supervision and duty hours, marking a change from a self-regulating profession to a more typical service industry. Recognition that health professionals involved in adverse events are also, in a sense, victims begins to grow.","PeriodicalId":113540,"journal":{"name":"Still Not Safe","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Still Not Safe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190271268.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The To Err is Human report rests upon a series of historical episodes—the early development of safety thinking in healthcare, the evolution of safety thinking in the safety sciences, and accumulating stories of personal suffering and tragedy experiences by patients. Concerns about the safety of healthcare date at least as far back as the Code of Hammurabi. Early efforts at improving safety appeared sporadically in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but these were isolated and not sustained. Malpractice concerns were also entangled with safety, and the first malpractice crisis in the United States came about due to advances, rather than deficiencies, in care. Public and governmental interest in safety more generally developed out of railway accidents in the nineteenth century. Notions of accidents evolved over time, moving from accident proneness to the domino model, to more complex models such as Reason’s Swiss cheese model. Libby Zion's death results in New York state legislation regulating medical trainees’ supervision and duty hours, marking a change from a self-regulating profession to a more typical service industry. Recognition that health professionals involved in adverse events are also, in a sense, victims begins to grow.
开始
《人孰无过》报告基于一系列历史事件——医疗安全思想的早期发展,安全科学中安全思想的演变,以及患者个人痛苦和悲剧经历的积累。对保健安全的关注至少可以追溯到《汉谟拉比法典》。在十八、十九世纪,提高安全的早期努力零星地出现,但这些都是孤立的,没有持续下去。医疗事故问题也与安全问题纠缠在一起,美国的第一次医疗事故危机是由于医疗保健的进步而不是缺陷造成的。公众和政府对安全的关注更多地是从19世纪的铁路事故中发展起来的。事故的概念随着时间的推移而演变,从事故倾向到多米诺骨牌模型,再到更复杂的模型,如理性的瑞士奶酪模型。利比·锡安的死亡导致纽约州立法规范医疗实习生的监督和值班时间,标志着一个从自我监管的行业向更典型的服务行业的转变。人们开始认识到,参与不良事件的卫生专业人员在某种意义上也是受害者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信