Safety-II and the study of healthcare safety routines: Two paths forward for research

IF 0.6 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Christofer Rydenfält
{"title":"Safety-II and the study of healthcare safety routines: Two paths forward for research","authors":"Christofer Rydenfält","doi":"10.1177/25160435221102129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Safety routines such as the WHO surgical safety checklist and SBAR have gained widespread attention and implementation in healthcare. However, there has also been criticism. With the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the need for knowledge about how safety routines work in practice is larger than ever. In light of these obstacles, I suggest two approaches to the study of healthcare safety routines, based on a human factors perspective and a safety II mind-set that so far has gained little attention. The WHO surgical safety checklist, is used as an example. However, the suggestions presented here applies to other safety routines as well. The first approach is that instead of being preoccupied with what people do not do, investigate what they value with the routine. The perceived importance of different parts of the routine can expose the rationality behind the personnel's choice of actions when using the routine. Knowledge that could be used both to investigate the dynamics of everyday performance and for redesign and adjustment of the routine. The second approach is that instead of looking for failure, investigate and highlight when the routine works. Examples of when the routine works, i.e. avert adverse events, can be used both as positive reinforcement, and as an opportunity for learning with regards to everyday performance variability. Since a safety-II perspective is largely missing in the literature on healthcare safety routines, the two approaches suggested here comes with a huge potential for learning about how to improve safety.","PeriodicalId":73888,"journal":{"name":"Journal of patient safety and risk management","volume":"123 1","pages":"124 - 128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of patient safety and risk management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25160435221102129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Safety routines such as the WHO surgical safety checklist and SBAR have gained widespread attention and implementation in healthcare. However, there has also been criticism. With the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the need for knowledge about how safety routines work in practice is larger than ever. In light of these obstacles, I suggest two approaches to the study of healthcare safety routines, based on a human factors perspective and a safety II mind-set that so far has gained little attention. The WHO surgical safety checklist, is used as an example. However, the suggestions presented here applies to other safety routines as well. The first approach is that instead of being preoccupied with what people do not do, investigate what they value with the routine. The perceived importance of different parts of the routine can expose the rationality behind the personnel's choice of actions when using the routine. Knowledge that could be used both to investigate the dynamics of everyday performance and for redesign and adjustment of the routine. The second approach is that instead of looking for failure, investigate and highlight when the routine works. Examples of when the routine works, i.e. avert adverse events, can be used both as positive reinforcement, and as an opportunity for learning with regards to everyday performance variability. Since a safety-II perspective is largely missing in the literature on healthcare safety routines, the two approaches suggested here comes with a huge potential for learning about how to improve safety.
安全ii和医疗安全常规的研究:研究的两条路径
卫生组织手术安全检查表和SBAR等安全规程在卫生保健领域得到了广泛关注和实施。然而,也有批评的声音。随着2019冠状病毒病(Covid-19)大流行的持续,对安全惯例如何在实践中发挥作用的知识的需求比以往任何时候都要大。鉴于这些障碍,我建议两种方法来研究医疗保健安全程序,基于人为因素的角度和安全II的思维模式,迄今为止很少得到关注。以世卫组织手术安全清单为例。然而,这里提出的建议也适用于其他安全程序。第一种方法是,与其专注于人们不做什么,不如调查他们在日常生活中看重什么。常规中不同部分的感知重要性可以揭示人员在使用常规时选择行动背后的合理性。这些知识既可以用来研究日常表现的动态,也可以用来重新设计和调整日常工作。第二种方法是,与其寻找失败,不如调查并强调常规工作的有效性。常规工作的例子,即避免不良事件,既可以作为正强化,也可以作为学习日常表现可变性的机会。由于关于医疗安全常规的文献中基本上缺少安全ii的观点,因此本文建议的两种方法具有学习如何提高安全性的巨大潜力。
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
CiteScore
2.00
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