A root cause analysis of clinical error: confronting the disjunction between formal rules and situated clinical activity.

This paper presents evidence from a root cause analysis (RCA) team meeting that was recently conducted in a Sydney Metropolitan Teaching Hospital to investigate an iatrogenic morphine overdose. Analysis of the meeting transcript reveals on three levels that clinical members of the team struggle with framing the uncertain and contradictory details of situated clinical activity and translating these first into 'root causes', and then into recommendations for practice change. This analysis puts two challenges into special relief. First, RCA team members find themselves in the unusual position of having to derive organizational-managerial generalizations from the specifics of in situ activity. Second, they are constrained by the expectation inscribed into RCA that their recommendations result in 'systems improvements' assumed to flow forth from an extension of formal rules and spread of procedures. We argue that this perspective misrecognizes the importance of RCA as a means to engender solutions that leave the procedural detail of clinical processes unspecified, and produce cross-hospital discussions about the organizational dimensions of care.

Turning the medical gaze in upon itself: root cause analysis and the investigation of clinical error.

In this paper, we discuss how a technique borrowed from defense and manufacturing is being deployed in hospitals across the industrialized world to investigate clinical errors. We open with a discussion of the levers used by policy makers to mandate that clinicians not just report errors, but also gather to investigate those errors using root cause analysis (RCA). We focus on the tensions created for clinicians as they are expected to formulate 'systems solutions' that go beyond blame. In addressing these matters, we present a discourse analysis of data derived during an evaluation of the NSW Health Safety Improvement Program. Data include transcripts of RCA meetings which were recorded in a local metropolitan teaching hospital. From this analysis we move back to the argument that RCA involves clinicians in 'immaterial labour', or the production of communication and information, and that this new labour realizes two important developments. First, because RCA is anchored in the principle of health care practitioners not just scrutinizing each other, but scrutinizing each others'errors, RCA is a challenging task. Second, thanks to turning the clinical gaze in on the clinical observer, RCA engenders a new level of reflexivity of clinical self and of clinical practice. We conclude with asking whether this reflexivity will lock the clinical gaze into a micro-sociology of error, or whether it will enable this gaze to influence matters superordinate to the specifics of practice and the design of clinical treatments; that is, the over-arching governance and structuring of hospital care.