Improving the Effectiveness of Root Cause Analysis in Hospitals.

Improving patient safety within hospitals has become a major focal point for administrative and clinical action. Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is an analytical tool used by hospitals in quality improvement and patient safety efforts. While hospitals have widely embraced RCA, the effectiveness of the RCA process has been questioned in recent years. Based on a literature review and feedback from practicing administrators, this paper identifies current barriers to the effectiveness of the RCA process, and suggests actions to overcome them. A more effective RCA process will enable hospitals to establish a safer and more trustworthy care environment for patients.

Using Safety-II and resilient healthcare principles to learn from Never Events.

OBJECTIVES: Conduct a secondary analysis of root cause analysis (RCA) reports of Never Events to determine whether and how Safety-II/resilient healthcare principles could contribute to improving the quality of investigation reports and therefore preventing future Never Events. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative retrospective analysis of RCA reports. SETTING: A large acute healthcare Trust in London. PARTICIPANTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Quality of RCA reports, robustness of actions proposed. RESULTS: RCA reports had low-to-moderate effectiveness ratings and low resilience ratings. Reports identified many system vulnerabilities that were not addressed in the actions proposed. Using a Safety-II/resilient healthcare lens to examine work-as-done and misalignments between demand and capacity would strengthen analysis of Never Events. CONCLUSION: Safety-II/Resilient Healthcare concepts can increase the quality of RCA reports and focus attention on prospectively strengthening systems. Recommendations for incorporating Safety-II concepts into RCA processes are provided.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a routine versus an extensive laboratory work-up in the diagnosis of anaemia in Dutch general practice.

Background Establishing the underlying cause of anaemia in general practice is a diagnostic challenge. Currently, general practitioners individually determine which laboratory tests to request (routine work-up) in order to diagnose the underlying cause. However, an extensive work-up (consisting of 14 tests) increases the proportion of patients correctly diagnosed. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of this extensive work-up. Methods A decision-analytic model was developed, incorporating all societal costs from the moment a patient presents to a general practitioner with symptoms suggestive of anaemia (aged ≥ 50 years), until the patient was (correctly) diagnosed and treated in primary care, or referred to (and diagnosed in) secondary care. Model inputs were derived from an online survey among general practitioners, expert estimates and published data. The primary outcome measure was expressed as incremental cost per additional patient diagnosed with the correct underlying cause of anaemia in either work-up. Results The probability of general practitioners diagnosing the correct underlying cause increased from 49.6% (95% CI: 44.8% to 54.5%) in the routine work-up to 56.0% (95% CI: 51.2% to 60.8%) in the extensive work-up (i.e. +6.4% [95% CI: -0.6% to 13.1%]). Costs are expected to increase slightly from €842/patient (95% CI: €704 to €994) to €845/patient (95% CI: €711 to €994), i.e. +€3/patient (95% CI: €-35 to €40) in the extensive work-up, indicating incremental costs of €43 per additional patient correctly diagnosed. Conclusions The extensive laboratory work-up is more effective for diagnosing the underlying cause of anaemia by general practitioners, at a minimal increase in costs. As accompanying benefits in terms of quality of life and reduced productivity losses could not be captured in this analysis, the extensive work-up is likely cost-effective.

The 60-Minute Root Cause Analysis: A Workshop to Engage Interdisciplinary Clinicians in Quality Improvement.

Introduction: We created a standardized workshop to engage residents in quality improvement (QI) using the root cause analysis model. The workshop allows for a robust learning experience while providing solutions derived from clinicians to address important local problems. No prerequisite knowledge or experience is required. Methods: The workshop is facilitated by one or more moderators, ideally with experience in QI. An interdisciplinary group of residents, medical students, nurses, and other attendees comprise an audience which actively engages in workshop activities. Facilitators follow a scripted model to teach important patient safety concepts with frequent break-outs for hands-on application of QI tools. During the workshop, participants create a process map and fishbone diagram, as well as develop and critically evaluate novel interventions. Results: Over the course of one academic year, the workshop has been implemented 17 times with roughly 25 internal medicine residents in attendance at each workshop. In addition, the workshop was run online for 126 participants with varied exposure to QI techniques. Forty percent of these participants completed a survey indicating that over 89% learned something new, 87% felt they could apply the material to their work, and 95% would recommend the workshop to a colleague. Discussion: This 60-minute workshop can provide hands-on QI experience in a standardized format to achieve the dual objectives of teaching QI to clinicians and allowing them to generate innovations. The module can be used for internal case development and trainee participation, but prepared cases are provided for facilitators without the resources for local case development.

New practice guidelines aim to put teeth in the root cause analysis process .

While hospitals have been using root cause analysis (RCA) to identify the reasons for problems and errors for many years, experts note that the results of these efforts have been uneven at best. To improve the RCA process, a team of experts from the National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) have assembled best-practice guidelines to both standardize the RCA process and guide organizations in their improvement efforts. Further, they have renamed the process RCA squared or RCA2 to emphasize the need for action steps once an analysis is completed. Report authors say prioritization methods need to be devised so that near-misses and close calls receive more attention from RCA2 teams. RCA2 teams should be nimble, including four to six members, one of whom is a patient representative. When problems or errors emerge, the RCA2 process should commence within 72 hours, and the RCA2 team should complete its investigative work in 30 to 45 days. Experts say causal statements should outline what the solutions to a problem or error should be.

Root-cause analysis and health failure mode and effect analysis: two leading techniques in health care quality assessment.

In this review article, the authors provide a detailed series of guidelines for effectively performing root-cause analysis (RCA) and health failure mode and effect analysis (HFMEA). RCA is a retrospective approach used to ascertain the "root cause" of a problem that has already occurred, whereas HFMEA is a prospective risk assessment tool whose aim is to recognize risks to patient safety. RCA and HFMEA are used for the prevention of errors or recurring errors to create a safer workplace, maintain high standards in health care quality, and incorporate time-saving and cost-saving modifications to favorably affect the patient care environment. The principles and techniques provided here should allow reviewers to better understand the features of RCA and HFMEA and how to apply these processes appropriately. These principles include how to organize a team, identify root causes, seed out proximate causes, graphically describe the process, conduct a hazard analysis, and develop and implement potential action plans.

An evidence-based toolkit for the development of effective and sustainable root cause analysis system safety solutions.

Root cause analysis (RCA) after adverse events in healthcare is a standard practice at many institutions. However, healthcare has failed to see a dramatic improvement in patient safety over the last decade. In order to improve the RCA process, this study used systems safety science, which is based partly on human factors engineering principles and has been applied with success in other high-risk industries like aviation. A multi-institutional dataset of 334 RCA cases and 782 solutions was analyzed using qualitative methods. A team of safety science experts developed a model of 13 RCA solutions categories through an iterative process, using semi-structured interview data from 44 frontline staff members from 7 different hospital-based unit types. These categories were placed in a model and toolkit to help guide RCA teams in developing sustainable and effective solutions to prevent future adverse events. This study was limited by its retrospective review of cases and use of interviews rather than clinical observations. In conclusion, systems safety principles were used to develop guidelines for RCA teams to promote systems-level sustainable and effective solutions for adverse events.

Residents contributing to inpatient quality: blending learning and improvement.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives reduce medical errors and are an important aspect of resident physician training. Many institutions have limited funding and few QI experts, making it essential to develop effective programs that require only modest resources. We describe a resident-led, hospitalist-facilitated limited root cause analysis (RCA) QI program developed to meet training needs and institutional constraints. METHODS: We initiated a monthly quality improvement conference (QIC) at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, New York. Before each conference, a third-year resident investigated a patient care issue and completed a limited RCA. At the QIC, the findings were presented to the Internal Medicine residents, followed by a chief resident and hospitalist-facilitated group discussion. All proposed interventions were recorded, and selected interventions were later implemented. The success of these interventions in achieving permanent system-wide change or resident behavior change was tracked. Residents' views on the conferences were solicited via an anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty conferences were held over the first 22 months of the program. Twenty-five (54%) of the 46 suggested interventions were initiated. Eighteen (72%) attempted interventions resulted in system-wide change or resident behavior change. Fifty-three residents evaluated the quality of the conferences. The majority believed the conferences were high quality (98%) and led to patient care improvements (96%). CONCLUSIONS: Resident-led modified RCAs are an effective method of integrating QI efforts into resident training. As front line providers, residents are uniquely positioned to identify and implement system changes that benefit patients. Conferences were implemented without overburdening facilitators or participants.

Key performance outcomes of patient safety curricula: root cause analysis, failure mode and effects analysis, and structured communications skills.

As colleges and schools of pharmacy develop core courses related to patient safety, course-level outcomes will need to include both knowledge and performance measures. Three key performance outcomes for patient safety coursework, measured at the course level, are the ability to perform root cause analyses and healthcare failure mode effects analyses, and the ability to generate effective safety communications using structured formats such as the Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) situational briefing model. Each of these skills is widely used in patient safety work and competence in their use is essential for a pharmacist's ability to contribute as a member of a patient safety team.

Improving RCA performance: the Cornerstone Award and the power of positive reinforcement.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration has had a comprehensive patient safety program since 1999 that includes conducting root cause analysis (RCA) of adverse medical events. Improving the quality and timeliness of the RCAs at the local level has been a continual challenge. METHODS: We initiated a non-monetary program called the Cornerstone Award into our patient safety reporting system to recognise facilities conducting high-quality and timely RCAs containing deterministic corrective actions that are implemented and evaluated for effectiveness. RESULTS: Since the Cornerstone Program began in 2008, the per cent of RCAs completed in a time-critical manner (≤45 days) has increased from an average of 52% pre-Cornerstone to an average of 94% post-Cornerstone. The per cent of action plans with stronger deterministic actions and outcomes has increased from an average of 34% pre-Cornerstone to an average of 70% post-Cornerstone. DISCUSSION: Implementing a non-monetary recognition award that was tied to specific improvement goals greatly improved the timeliness and quality of the RCA reports in the Veterans Health Administration System.

Integrating disclosure, patient safety and risk management activities.

National Quality Forum safe-practice guidelines encourage hospitals to integrate disclosure, patient safety and risk management activities. Combining collaborative law with a patient safety program in a parallel process makes it possible to achieve this integration. This combination provides for physician-led guidance in determining whether disclosure is required - and, if so, provides mentor assistance with actual disclosure. It offers proactive error prevention by offering a means to quickly utilize information to make safety changes. Additionally, the combination provides an opportunity to access collaborative law at a time when it is still possible to resolve issues without resort to litigation.