Risk Controls Identified in Action Plans Following Serious Incident Investigations in Secondary Care: A Qualitative Study.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-26 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001238
Mohammad Farhad Peerally, Susan Carr, Justin Waring, Graham Martin, Mary Dixon-Woods
{"title":"Risk Controls Identified in Action Plans Following Serious Incident Investigations in Secondary Care: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Mohammad Farhad Peerally, Susan Carr, Justin Waring, Graham Martin, Mary Dixon-Woods","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The impact of incident investigations in improving patient safety may be linked to the quality of risk controls recommended in investigation reports. We aimed to identify the range and apparent strength of risk controls generated from investigations into serious incidents, map them against contributory factors identified in investigation reports, and characterize the nature of the risk controls proposed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a content analysis of 126 action plans of serious incident investigation reports from a multisite and multispeciality UK hospital over a 3-year period to identify the risk controls proposed. We coded each risk control against the contributory factor it aimed to address. Using a hierarchy of risk controls model, we assessed the strength of proposed risk controls. We used thematic analysis to characterize the nature of proposed risk controls.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A substantial proportion (15%) of factors identified in investigation reports as contributing to serious incidents were not addressed by identifiable risk controls. Of the 822 proposed risk controls in action plans, most (74%) were assessed as weak, typically focusing on individualized interventions-even when the problems were organizational or systemic in character. The following 6 broad approaches to risk controls could be identified: improving individual or team performance; defining, standardizing, or reinforcing expected practice; improving the working environment; improving communication; process improvements; and disciplinary actions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The identified shortfalls in the quality of risk controls following serious incident investigations-including a 15% mismatch between contributory factors and aligned risk controls and 74% of proposed risk controls centering on weaker interventions-represent significant gaps in translating incident investigations into meaningful systemic improvements. Advancing the quality of risk controls after serious incident investigations will require involvement of human factors specialists in their design, a theory-of-change approach, evaluation, and curation and sharing of learning, all supported by a common framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":" ","pages":"440-447"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001238","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The impact of incident investigations in improving patient safety may be linked to the quality of risk controls recommended in investigation reports. We aimed to identify the range and apparent strength of risk controls generated from investigations into serious incidents, map them against contributory factors identified in investigation reports, and characterize the nature of the risk controls proposed.

Methods: We undertook a content analysis of 126 action plans of serious incident investigation reports from a multisite and multispeciality UK hospital over a 3-year period to identify the risk controls proposed. We coded each risk control against the contributory factor it aimed to address. Using a hierarchy of risk controls model, we assessed the strength of proposed risk controls. We used thematic analysis to characterize the nature of proposed risk controls.

Results: A substantial proportion (15%) of factors identified in investigation reports as contributing to serious incidents were not addressed by identifiable risk controls. Of the 822 proposed risk controls in action plans, most (74%) were assessed as weak, typically focusing on individualized interventions-even when the problems were organizational or systemic in character. The following 6 broad approaches to risk controls could be identified: improving individual or team performance; defining, standardizing, or reinforcing expected practice; improving the working environment; improving communication; process improvements; and disciplinary actions.

Conclusions: The identified shortfalls in the quality of risk controls following serious incident investigations-including a 15% mismatch between contributory factors and aligned risk controls and 74% of proposed risk controls centering on weaker interventions-represent significant gaps in translating incident investigations into meaningful systemic improvements. Advancing the quality of risk controls after serious incident investigations will require involvement of human factors specialists in their design, a theory-of-change approach, evaluation, and curation and sharing of learning, all supported by a common framework.

二级医疗机构严重事故调查后行动计划中确定的风险控制措施:定性研究。
目的:事故调查对改善患者安全的影响可能与调查报告中建议的风险控制措施的质量有关。我们旨在确定严重事故调查中提出的风险控制措施的范围和明显力度,将其与调查报告中确定的促成因素进行对比,并描述所建议的风险控制措施的性质:我们对英国一家多地点、多专科医院 3 年内严重事故调查报告中的 126 份行动计划进行了内容分析,以确定所提出的风险控制措施。我们根据每项风险控制措施旨在解决的促成因素对其进行了编码。我们使用风险控制层次模型,评估了建议的风险控制措施的力度。我们使用主题分析法来描述建议的风险控制措施的性质:在调查报告中被确定为导致严重事故的因素中,有很大一部分(15%)没有通过可识别的风险控制措施来解决。在行动计划中提出的 822 项风险控制措施中,大多数(74%)被评估为薄弱环节,通常侧重于个别干预--即使问题是组织性或系统性的。可以确定的风险控制方法大致有以下 6 种:提高个人或团队的绩效;界定、规范或强化预期做法;改善工作环境;加强沟通;改进流程;以及纪律处分:结论:在严重事故调查后发现的风险控制质量缺陷--包括15%的促成因素与调整后的风险控制不匹配,以及74%的拟议风险控制以较弱的干预为中心--表明在将事故调查转化为有意义的系统改进方面存在重大差距。要在严重事故调查后提高风险控制措施的质量,需要人为因素专家参与设计、采用变革理论方法、进行评估、整理和分享学习成果,所有这些都需要一个共同框架的支持。
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
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
×
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