在大型医疗保健系统中开发和部署患者安全计划:你不知道的事情是无法解决的

James P. Bagian MD, PE (Director), Caryl Lee RN (NCPS program manager), John Gosbee MD (Director), Joseph DeRosier PE, CSP (NCPS program manager), Erik Stalhandske MPP, MHSA (NCPS program manager), Noel Eldridge MS (NCPS executive assistant), Rodney Williams JD (NCPS program manager), Mary Burkhardt MS, RPh (NCPS program manager)
{"title":"在大型医疗保健系统中开发和部署患者安全计划:你不知道的事情是无法解决的","authors":"James P. Bagian MD, PE (Director),&nbsp;Caryl Lee RN (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;John Gosbee MD (Director),&nbsp;Joseph DeRosier PE, CSP (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;Erik Stalhandske MPP, MHSA (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;Noel Eldridge MS (NCPS executive assistant),&nbsp;Rodney Williams JD (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;Mary Burkhardt MS, RPh (NCPS program manager)","doi":"10.1016/S1070-3241(01)27046-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Veterans Administration (VA) identified patient safety as a high-priority issue in 1997 and implemented the Patient Safety Improvement (PSI) initiative throughout its entire health care system. In spring 1998 the External Panel on Patient Safety System Design recommended alternative methods to enhance reporting and thereby improve patient safety.</p></div><div><h3>Redesigning the PSI initiative</h3><p>The VA began redesigning the PSI initiative in late 1998. The dedicated National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) was established. Using the panel’s recommendations as a jumping-off point, NCPS began to identify known and suspected obstacles to implementation (such as possible punitive consequences and additional workload). NCPS adopted a prioritization scoring method, the Safety Assessment Code (SAC) Matrix, for close calls and adverse events, which requires assessing the event’s actual or potential severity and the probability of occurrence. The SAC Matrix specifies actions that must be taken for given scores. Use of the SAC score permits a consistent handling of reports throughout the VA system and a rational selection of cases to be considered. A system for performing a root cause analysis (RCA) was developed to guide caregivers at the frontline. This system includes a computer-aided tool, a flipbook containing a series of six questions, and reporting of the findings back to the reporter. The final step requires that the facility’s chief executive officer “concur” or “nonconcur” on each recommended corrective action. The RCA team outlines how the effectiveness of the corrective action will be evaluated to verify that the action has had the intended effect, and it ascertains that there were no unintended negative consequences.</p></div><div><h3>Implementation</h3><p>Based on successful implementation in two pilots, full-scale national rollout to the 173 facilities began in April 2000 and was concluded by the end of August 2000. NCPS supplied 3 days of training for individuals at each facility. The training included didactic components, an introduction to human factors engineering concepts, and small- and large-group simulation exercises. Facility leaders were reminded of the necessity to reinforce the point that assignment to an RCA team was considered an important duty.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>It is essential to design and implement a system that takes into account the concerns of the frontline personnel and is aimed at being a tool for learning and not accountability. The system must have as its primary focus the dissemination of positive actions that reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities that have been identified, not a counting exercise of the number of reports.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":79382,"journal":{"name":"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement","volume":"27 10","pages":"Pages 522-532"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1070-3241(01)27046-1","citationCount":"263","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing and Deploying a Patient Safety Program in a Large Health Care Delivery System: You Can’t Fix What You Don’t Know About\",\"authors\":\"James P. Bagian MD, PE (Director),&nbsp;Caryl Lee RN (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;John Gosbee MD (Director),&nbsp;Joseph DeRosier PE, CSP (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;Erik Stalhandske MPP, MHSA (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;Noel Eldridge MS (NCPS executive assistant),&nbsp;Rodney Williams JD (NCPS program manager),&nbsp;Mary Burkhardt MS, RPh (NCPS program manager)\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/S1070-3241(01)27046-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The Veterans Administration (VA) identified patient safety as a high-priority issue in 1997 and implemented the Patient Safety Improvement (PSI) initiative throughout its entire health care system. In spring 1998 the External Panel on Patient Safety System Design recommended alternative methods to enhance reporting and thereby improve patient safety.</p></div><div><h3>Redesigning the PSI initiative</h3><p>The VA began redesigning the PSI initiative in late 1998. The dedicated National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) was established. Using the panel’s recommendations as a jumping-off point, NCPS began to identify known and suspected obstacles to implementation (such as possible punitive consequences and additional workload). NCPS adopted a prioritization scoring method, the Safety Assessment Code (SAC) Matrix, for close calls and adverse events, which requires assessing the event’s actual or potential severity and the probability of occurrence. The SAC Matrix specifies actions that must be taken for given scores. Use of the SAC score permits a consistent handling of reports throughout the VA system and a rational selection of cases to be considered. A system for performing a root cause analysis (RCA) was developed to guide caregivers at the frontline. This system includes a computer-aided tool, a flipbook containing a series of six questions, and reporting of the findings back to the reporter. The final step requires that the facility’s chief executive officer “concur” or “nonconcur” on each recommended corrective action. The RCA team outlines how the effectiveness of the corrective action will be evaluated to verify that the action has had the intended effect, and it ascertains that there were no unintended negative consequences.</p></div><div><h3>Implementation</h3><p>Based on successful implementation in two pilots, full-scale national rollout to the 173 facilities began in April 2000 and was concluded by the end of August 2000. NCPS supplied 3 days of training for individuals at each facility. The training included didactic components, an introduction to human factors engineering concepts, and small- and large-group simulation exercises. Facility leaders were reminded of the necessity to reinforce the point that assignment to an RCA team was considered an important duty.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><p>It is essential to design and implement a system that takes into account the concerns of the frontline personnel and is aimed at being a tool for learning and not accountability. The system must have as its primary focus the dissemination of positive actions that reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities that have been identified, not a counting exercise of the number of reports.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement\",\"volume\":\"27 10\",\"pages\":\"Pages 522-532\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1070-3241(01)27046-1\",\"citationCount\":\"263\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1070324101270461\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Joint Commission journal on quality improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1070324101270461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 263

摘要

退伍军人管理局(VA)在1997年将患者安全确定为一个高度优先的问题,并在其整个医疗保健系统中实施了患者安全改进(PSI)倡议。1998年春季,患者安全系统设计外部小组推荐了其他方法来加强报告,从而改善患者安全。重新设计PSI倡议1998年底,退伍军人事务部开始重新设计PSI倡议。成立了专门的国家患者安全中心(NCPS)。以专家小组的建议为出发点,国家预防和控制中心开始确定已知和可疑的实施障碍(例如可能的惩罚性后果和额外的工作量)。NCPS采用安全评估代码(SAC)矩阵的优先级评分方法,对近距离呼叫和不良事件进行评分,需要评估事件的实际或潜在严重程度以及发生的概率。SAC矩阵指定了针对给定分数必须采取的行动。使用SAC分数允许在整个VA系统中一致地处理报告,并合理地选择要考虑的案例。开发了一个执行根本原因分析(RCA)的系统,以指导一线的护理人员。该系统包括一个计算机辅助工具,一个包含一系列六个问题的翻转本,并将调查结果报告给记者。最后一步要求工厂的首席执行官对每项建议的纠正措施“同意”或“不同意”。RCA团队概述了如何评估纠正措施的有效性,以验证该措施是否产生了预期的效果,并确定没有意外的负面后果。在两个试点项目成功实施的基础上,于2000年4月开始在全国全面推广173个设施,并于2000年8月底完成。国家传染病控制中心为每个设施的个人提供了3天的培训。培训内容包括教学内容、人为因素工程概念的介绍,以及小型和大型小组模拟练习。会议提醒各设施的领导必须强调一点,即分配到一个区域协调中心小组是一项重要的职责。讨论设计和实施一个考虑到前线人员关切的制度是至关重要的,该制度的目的是作为学习的工具,而不是问责制。该系统的主要重点必须是传播减少或消除已查明的脆弱性的积极行动,而不是计算报告的数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing and Deploying a Patient Safety Program in a Large Health Care Delivery System: You Can’t Fix What You Don’t Know About

Background

The Veterans Administration (VA) identified patient safety as a high-priority issue in 1997 and implemented the Patient Safety Improvement (PSI) initiative throughout its entire health care system. In spring 1998 the External Panel on Patient Safety System Design recommended alternative methods to enhance reporting and thereby improve patient safety.

Redesigning the PSI initiative

The VA began redesigning the PSI initiative in late 1998. The dedicated National Center for Patient Safety (NCPS) was established. Using the panel’s recommendations as a jumping-off point, NCPS began to identify known and suspected obstacles to implementation (such as possible punitive consequences and additional workload). NCPS adopted a prioritization scoring method, the Safety Assessment Code (SAC) Matrix, for close calls and adverse events, which requires assessing the event’s actual or potential severity and the probability of occurrence. The SAC Matrix specifies actions that must be taken for given scores. Use of the SAC score permits a consistent handling of reports throughout the VA system and a rational selection of cases to be considered. A system for performing a root cause analysis (RCA) was developed to guide caregivers at the frontline. This system includes a computer-aided tool, a flipbook containing a series of six questions, and reporting of the findings back to the reporter. The final step requires that the facility’s chief executive officer “concur” or “nonconcur” on each recommended corrective action. The RCA team outlines how the effectiveness of the corrective action will be evaluated to verify that the action has had the intended effect, and it ascertains that there were no unintended negative consequences.

Implementation

Based on successful implementation in two pilots, full-scale national rollout to the 173 facilities began in April 2000 and was concluded by the end of August 2000. NCPS supplied 3 days of training for individuals at each facility. The training included didactic components, an introduction to human factors engineering concepts, and small- and large-group simulation exercises. Facility leaders were reminded of the necessity to reinforce the point that assignment to an RCA team was considered an important duty.

Discussion

It is essential to design and implement a system that takes into account the concerns of the frontline personnel and is aimed at being a tool for learning and not accountability. The system must have as its primary focus the dissemination of positive actions that reduce or eliminate vulnerabilities that have been identified, not a counting exercise of the number of reports.

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
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