Human Factors Analysis of Latent Safety Threats in a Pediatric Critical Care Unit.

OBJECTIVES: To identify unique latent safety threats spanning routine pediatric critical care activities and categorize them according to their underlying work system factors (i.e., "environment, organization, person, task, tools/technology") and associated clinician behavior (i.e., "legal": expected compliance with or "illegal-normal": deviation from and "illegal-illegal": disregard for standard policies and protocols). DESIGN: A prospective observational study with contextual inquiry of clinical activities over a 5-month period. SETTING: Two PICUs (i.e., medical-surgical ICU and cardiac ICU) in an urban free-standing quaternary children's hospital. SUBJECTS: Attending physicians and trainees, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, respiratory therapists, dieticians, pharmacists, and patient services assistants were observed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Conducted 188 hours of observations to prospectively identify unique latent safety threats. Qualitative observational notes were analyzed by human factors experts using a modified framework analysis methodology to summarize latent safety threats and categorize them based on associated clinical activity, predominant work system factor, and clinician behavior. Two hundred twenty-six unique latent safety threats were observed. The latent safety threats were categorized into 13 clinical activities and attributed to work system factors as follows: "organization" (n = 83; 37%), "task" (n = 52; 23%), "tools/technology" (n = 40; 18%), "person" (n = 32; 14%), and "environment" (n = 19; 8%). Twenty-three percent of latent safety threats were identified when staff complied with policies and protocols (i.e., "legal" behavior) and 77% when staff deviated from policies and protocols (i.e., "illegal-normal" behavior). There was no "illegal-illegal" behavior observed. CONCLUSIONS: Latent safety threats span various pediatric critical care activities and are attributable to many underlying work system factors. Latent safety threats are present both when staff comply with and deviate from policies and protocols, suggesting that simply reinforcing compliance with existing policies and protocols, the common default intervention imposed by healthcare organizations, will be insufficient to mitigate safety threats. Rather, interventions must be designed to address the underlying work system threats. This human factors informed framework analysis of observational data is a useful approach to identifying and understanding latent safety threats and can be used in other clinical work systems.

Assessing the electronic Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System: A simulation study on decision-making and usability.

BACKGROUND: The Bedside Paediatric Early Warning System (BedsidePEWS) is a clinical decision support tool designed to augment clinician expertise, objectively identify children at risk for clinical deterioration, and standardize and prioritize care to improve outcomes in community settings. Although the paper-based BedsidePEWS documentation record has been shown to improve clinicians' perception of their ability to detect deterioration and follow care recommendations, research is needed to asses this impact empirically. Furthermore, as hospitals progressively move toward electronic clinical systems, knowledge regarding the impact of BedsidePEWS' novel electronic interface on clinicians' performance and user experience is required. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of this study were (1) to compare adherence to evidence-based care recommendations using a) electronic health record software, b) paper BedsidePEWS, and c) a novel electronic BedsidePEWS interface, and (2) to describe end-users' experiences of usability and opportunities for improvement of both paper and electronic BedsidePEWS. METHODS: Paediatric nurses participated in a repeated measures simulation study. Participants assessed simulated patients, documented patient data, and responded to a series of questions regarding follow-up care for each patient. Three patient types (i.e., stable, mild deterioration, severe deterioration) were assessed in each of three intervention conditions (i.e., electronic health record, paper BedsidePEWS, electronic BedsidePEWS). Following simulation scenarios, participants provided comments regarding the usability of the paper and electronic tools. RESULTS: Participants made 12.7% and 18.0% more appropriate care decisions with paper and electronic BedsidePEWS, respectively, than with the electronic health record intervention (p < 0.001). Accurate BedsidePEWS severity of illness score calculation was related to better adherence to evidence-based care recommendations (65%), compared to inaccurate calculation (55%), and electronic BedsidePEWS was associated with 15.7% fewer calculation errors than paper (p < 0.005). Electronic BedsidePEWS demonstrated usability benefits over its paper predecessor, including automatic score calculation and data plotting, and the potential to eliminate double charting, and participants expressed a preference for electronic BedsidePEWS in all aspects of the debrief questionnaire (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: BedsidePEWS in both paper and electronic formats significantly improved participants' ability to detect deterioration and follow care recommendations compared to electronic health record software. Furthermore, results suggest that electronic BedsidePEWS would afford improved patient care in excess of the paper-based original and further contribute to the standardization, prioritization, and improvement of care in community settings.