患者安全事件调查是否符合系统思维?影响因素的分析和建议。

IF 6.5 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lorelle Bowditch, Charlotte Molloy, Brandon King, Masoumeh Abedi, Samantha Jackson, Mia Bierbaum, Yinghua Yu, Louise Raggett, Paul Salmon, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Johanna I Westbrook, Robyn Clay-Williams, Raghu Lingam, Sandy Middleton, Farah Magrabi, Virginia Mumford, Peter Hibbert
{"title":"患者安全事件调查是否符合系统思维?影响因素的分析和建议。","authors":"Lorelle Bowditch, Charlotte Molloy, Brandon King, Masoumeh Abedi, Samantha Jackson, Mia Bierbaum, Yinghua Yu, Louise Raggett, Paul Salmon, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Johanna I Westbrook, Robyn Clay-Williams, Raghu Lingam, Sandy Middleton, Farah Magrabi, Virginia Mumford, Peter Hibbert","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-019063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, up to 17% of hospitalised people suffer a patient safety incident. Learning from adverse events through patient safety investigation is critical to prevention; however, their utility is still questioned. Two key investigation outputs include identifying contributing factors (CFs) and proposing recommendations to prevent future occurrences. Criticisms of current methods include incomplete analysis of CFs and weak incident prevention strategies. A proposed solution is systems thinking analysis, which recognises healthcare complexity. However, it is not clear whether such methods are being applied in practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess current use of systems thinking-based strategies by examining a set of Australian patient safety incident investigations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Investigations (n=300) from 56 different Australian health services were deductively analysed. Identified CFs were classified by healthcare system level using a framework combining Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) principles and AcciMap's hierarchical structure. Recommendation sustainability and effectiveness were classified as weak, medium or strong using US Department of Veteran Affairs' criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>51% of incidents were issues with clinical processes and procedures. The investigations identified CFs that disproportionally focused on the people involved in those processes (n=677, 47%) rather than other system levels and as a consequence, most recommendations were of medium (n=665, 51%) and weak (n=560, 43%) strength. Notably, 10% of investigations lacked any CFs or recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The focus on individual actions highlighted that simple linear thinking persists in patient safety incident investigations. This study proposes five key areas of effective incident analysis and investigation: a sociotechnical focus; improved data collection techniques; investigative independence; the professionalisation of investigators; and the aggregation of data. Learning from incidents is key to maximising their preventative effectiveness, especially in an increasingly complex healthcare system.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do patient safety incident investigations align with systems thinking? An analysis of contributing factors and recommendations.\",\"authors\":\"Lorelle Bowditch, Charlotte Molloy, Brandon King, Masoumeh Abedi, Samantha Jackson, Mia Bierbaum, Yinghua Yu, Louise Raggett, Paul Salmon, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Johanna I Westbrook, Robyn Clay-Williams, Raghu Lingam, Sandy Middleton, Farah Magrabi, Virginia Mumford, Peter Hibbert\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjqs-2025-019063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, up to 17% of hospitalised people suffer a patient safety incident. Learning from adverse events through patient safety investigation is critical to prevention; however, their utility is still questioned. Two key investigation outputs include identifying contributing factors (CFs) and proposing recommendations to prevent future occurrences. Criticisms of current methods include incomplete analysis of CFs and weak incident prevention strategies. A proposed solution is systems thinking analysis, which recognises healthcare complexity. However, it is not clear whether such methods are being applied in practice.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to assess current use of systems thinking-based strategies by examining a set of Australian patient safety incident investigations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Investigations (n=300) from 56 different Australian health services were deductively analysed. Identified CFs were classified by healthcare system level using a framework combining Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) principles and AcciMap's hierarchical structure. Recommendation sustainability and effectiveness were classified as weak, medium or strong using US Department of Veteran Affairs' criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>51% of incidents were issues with clinical processes and procedures. The investigations identified CFs that disproportionally focused on the people involved in those processes (n=677, 47%) rather than other system levels and as a consequence, most recommendations were of medium (n=665, 51%) and weak (n=560, 43%) strength. Notably, 10% of investigations lacked any CFs or recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The focus on individual actions highlighted that simple linear thinking persists in patient safety incident investigations. This study proposes five key areas of effective incident analysis and investigation: a sociotechnical focus; improved data collection techniques; investigative independence; the professionalisation of investigators; and the aggregation of data. Learning from incidents is key to maximising their preventative effectiveness, especially in an increasingly complex healthcare system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Quality & Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2025-019063\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2025-019063","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在全球范围内,高达17%的住院患者遭受过患者安全事件。通过患者安全调查从不良事件中学习对预防至关重要;然而,它们的效用仍然受到质疑。两项重要的调查成果包括确定影响因素和提出预防今后发生的建议。对当前方法的批评包括对cf的分析不完整和事件预防策略薄弱。一个建议的解决方案是系统思维分析,它认识到医疗保健的复杂性。然而,目前尚不清楚这些方法是否在实践中得到应用。目的:本研究旨在通过检查一组澳大利亚患者安全事件调查来评估当前基于系统思维的策略的使用。方法:对来自澳大利亚56个不同卫生服务机构的调查(n=300)进行演绎分析。使用结合患者安全系统工程倡议(SEIPS)原则和AcciMap分层结构的框架,根据医疗保健系统级别对已确定的cf进行分类。根据美国退伍军人事务部的标准,建议的可持续性和有效性被分为弱、中、强三个等级。结果:51%的事件与临床流程和程序有关。调查发现,CFs不成比例地关注参与这些过程的人员(n=677, 47%),而不是其他系统级别,因此,大多数建议是中等(n=665, 51%)和弱(n=560, 43%)的强度。值得注意的是,10%的调查缺乏任何CFs或建议。结论:对个体行为的关注强调了简单的线性思维在患者安全事件调查中的坚持。本研究提出了有效事件分析和调查的五个关键领域:社会技术焦点;改进数据收集技术;调查独立;调查人员的职业化;以及数据的聚合。从事故中学习是最大限度提高预防效果的关键,特别是在日益复杂的医疗保健系统中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do patient safety incident investigations align with systems thinking? An analysis of contributing factors and recommendations.

Background: Globally, up to 17% of hospitalised people suffer a patient safety incident. Learning from adverse events through patient safety investigation is critical to prevention; however, their utility is still questioned. Two key investigation outputs include identifying contributing factors (CFs) and proposing recommendations to prevent future occurrences. Criticisms of current methods include incomplete analysis of CFs and weak incident prevention strategies. A proposed solution is systems thinking analysis, which recognises healthcare complexity. However, it is not clear whether such methods are being applied in practice.

Objective: This study aimed to assess current use of systems thinking-based strategies by examining a set of Australian patient safety incident investigations.

Methods: Investigations (n=300) from 56 different Australian health services were deductively analysed. Identified CFs were classified by healthcare system level using a framework combining Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) principles and AcciMap's hierarchical structure. Recommendation sustainability and effectiveness were classified as weak, medium or strong using US Department of Veteran Affairs' criteria.

Results: 51% of incidents were issues with clinical processes and procedures. The investigations identified CFs that disproportionally focused on the people involved in those processes (n=677, 47%) rather than other system levels and as a consequence, most recommendations were of medium (n=665, 51%) and weak (n=560, 43%) strength. Notably, 10% of investigations lacked any CFs or recommendations.

Conclusion: The focus on individual actions highlighted that simple linear thinking persists in patient safety incident investigations. This study proposes five key areas of effective incident analysis and investigation: a sociotechnical focus; improved data collection techniques; investigative independence; the professionalisation of investigators; and the aggregation of data. Learning from incidents is key to maximising their preventative effectiveness, especially in an increasingly complex healthcare system.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信