A review of the use of human factors classification frameworks that identify causal factors for adverse events in the hospital setting

Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management. Part II

The Airway Management section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), and the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guide for the comprehensive management of difficult airway in adult patients. Its principles are focused on the human factor, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations, and optimization in the progression of strategies application to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to enhance safety and the quality of care. The document provides evidence-based recommendations, theoretical-educational tools, and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to airway management in the fields of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies, and prehospital medicine. For this purpose, an extensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and was analyzed using the GRADE methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology. Recommendations for sections with low-quality evidence were based on expert opinion through consensus reached via a Delphi questionnaire.

Patient safety classifications, taxonomies and ontologies, part 2: A systematic review on content coverage

BACKGROUND

Content coverage of patient safety ontology and classification systems should be evaluated to provide a guide for users to select appropriate ones for specific applications. In this review, we identified and compare content coverage of patient safety classifications and ontologies.

METHODS

We searched different databases and ontology/classification repositories to identify these classifications and ontologies. We included patient safety-related taxonomies, ontologies, classifications, and terminologies. We identified and extracted different concepts covered by these systems and mapped these concepts to international classification for patient safety (ICPS) and finally compared the content of these systems.

RESULTS

Finally, 89 papers (77 classifications or ontologies) were analyzed. Thirteen classifications have been developed to cover all medical domains. Among specific domain systems, most systems cover medication (16), surgery (8), medical devices (3), general practice (3), and primary care (3). The most common patient safety-related concepts covered in these systems include incident types (41), contributing factors/hazards (31), patient outcomes (29), degree of harm (25), and action (18). However, stage/phase (6), incident characteristics (5), detection (5), people involved (5), organizational outcomes (4), error type (4), and care setting (3) are some of the less covered concepts in these classifications/ontologies.

CONCLUSION

Among general systems, ICPS, World Health Organization's Adverse Reaction Terminology (WHO-ART), and Ontology of Adverse Events (OAE) cover most patient safety concepts and can be used as a gold standard for all medical domains. As a result, reporting systems could make use of these broad classifications, but the majority of their covered concepts are related to patient outcomes, with the exception of ICPS, which covers other patient safety concepts. However, the ICPS does not cover specialized domain concepts. For specific medical domains, MedDRA, NCC MERP, OPAE, ADRO, PPST, OCCME, TRTE, TSAHI, and PSIC-PC provide the broadest coverage of concepts. Many of the patient safety classifications and ontologies are not formally registered or available as formal classification/ontology in ontology repositories such as BioPortal. This study may be used as a guide for choosing appropriate classifications for various applications or expanding less developed patient safety classifications/ontologies. Furthermore, the same concepts are not represented by the same terms; therefore, the current study could be used to guide a harmonization process for existing or future patient safety classifications/ontologies.

Patient safety classification, taxonomy and ontology systems: A systematic review on development and evaluation methodologies

INTRODUCTION

Patient safety classifications/ontologies enable patient safety information systems to receive and analyze patient safety data to improve patient safety. Patient safety classifications/ontologies have been developed and evaluated using a variety of methods. The purpose of this review was to discuss and analyze the methodologies for developing and evaluating patient safety classifications/ontologies.

METHODS

Studies that developed or evaluated patient safety classifications, terminologies, taxonomies, or ontologies were searched through Google Scholar, Google search engines, National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO) BioPortal, Open Biological and Biomedical Ontology (OBO) Foundry and World Health Organization (WHO) websites and Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Science Direct. We updated our search on 30 February 2021 and included all studies published until the end of 2020. Studies that developed or evaluated classifications only for patient safety and provided information on how they were developed or evaluated were included. Systems with covered patient safety terms (such as ICD-10) but are not specifically developed for patient safety were excluded. The quality and the risk of bias of studies were not assessed because all methodologies and criteria were intended to be covered. In addition, we analyzed the data through descriptive narrative synthesis and compared and classified the development and evaluation methods and evaluation criteria according to available development and evaluation approaches for biomedical ontologies.

RESULTS

We identified 84 articles that met all of the inclusion criteria, resulting in 70 classifications/ontologies, nine of which were for the general medical domain. The most papers were published in 2010 and 2011, with 8 and 7 papers, respectively. The United States (50) and Australia (23) have the most studies. The most commonly used methods for developing classifications/ontologies included the use of existing systems (for expanding or mapping) (44) and qualitative analysis of event reports (39). The most common evaluation methods were coding or classifying some safety report samples (25), quantitative analysis of incidents based on the developed classification (24), and consensus among physicians (16). The most commonly applied evaluation criteria were reliability (27), content and face validity (9), comprehensiveness (6), usability (5), linguistic clarity (5), and impact (4), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the weaknesses and strengths of the development/evaluation methods, it is advised that more than one method for development or evaluation, as well as evaluation criteria, should be used. To organize the processes of developing classification/ontologies, well-established approaches such as Methontology are recommended. The most prevalent evaluation methods applied in this domain are well fitted to the biomedical ontology evaluation methods, but it is also advised to apply some evaluation approaches such as logic, rules, and Natural language processing (NLP) based in combination with other evaluation approaches. This research can assist domain researchers in developing or evaluating domain ontologies using more complete methodologies. There is also a lack of reporting consistency in the literature and same methods or criteria were reported with different terminologies.

Using the WHO International Classification of patient safety framework to identify incident characteristics and contributing factors for medical or surgical complication deaths

This study aimed to operationalise and use the World Health Organisation's International Classification for Patient Safety (ICPS) to identify incident characteristics and contributing factors of deaths involving complications of medical or surgical care in Australia. A sample of 500 coronial findings related to patient deaths following complications of surgical or medical care in Australia were reviewed using a modified-ICPS (mICPS). Over two-thirds (69.0%) of incidents occurred during treatment and 27.4% occurred in the operating theatre. Clinical process and procedures (55.9%), medication/IV fluids (11.2%) and healthcare-associated infection/complications (10.4%) were the most common incident types. Coroners made recommendations in 44.0% of deaths and organisations undertook preventive actions in 40.0% of deaths. This study demonstrated that the ICPS was able to be modified for practical use as a human factors taxonomy to identify sequences of incident types and contributing factors for patient deaths. Further testing of the mICPS is warranted.

Managing care errors in the wards

Purpose

The importance of an error management culture (EMC) that integrates error prevention with error management after errors occur has been highlighted in the existing literature. However, few empirical studies currently support the relationship between EMC and errors, while the factors that affect EMC remain underexplored. Drawing on the conceptualisation of organisational cultures, the purpose of this paper is to verify the contribution of authentic leadership in steering EMC, thereby leading to reduced errors.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors conducted a cross-sectional survey study. The sample included 280 nurses.

Findings

Results of a full structural equation model supported the hypothesised model, showing that authentic leadership is positively associated with EMC, which in turn is negatively associated with the frequency of errors.

Practical implications

These results provide initial evidence for the role of authentic leadership in enhancing EMC and consequently, fostering error reduction in the workplace. The tested model suggests that the adoption of an authentic style can promote policies and practices to proactively manage errors, paving the way to error reduction in the workplace.

Originality/value

This study was one of the first to investigate the relationship between authentic leadership, error culture and errors. Further, it contributes to the existing literature by demonstrating both the importance of cultural orientation in protecting the organisation from error occurrence and the key role of authentic leaders in creating an environment for EMC development, thus permitting the organisation to learn from errors and reduce their negative consequences.

Developing a contributing factor classification scheme for Rasmussen's AcciMap: Reliability and validity evaluation

One factor potentially limiting the uptake of Rasmussen's (1997) Accimap method by practitioners is the lack of a contributing factor classification scheme to guide accident analyses. This article evaluates the intra- and inter-rater reliability and criterion-referenced validity of a classification scheme developed to support the use of Accimap by led outdoor activity (LOA) practitioners. The classification scheme has two levels: the system level describes the actors, artefacts and activity context in terms of 14 codes; the descriptor level breaks the system level codes down into 107 specific contributing factors. The study involved 11 LOA practitioners using the scheme on two separate occasions to code a pre-determined list of contributing factors identified from four incident reports. Criterion-referenced validity was assessed by comparing the codes selected by LOA practitioners to those selected by the method creators. Mean intra-rater reliability scores at the system (M = 83.6%) and descriptor (M = 74%) levels were acceptable. Mean inter-rater reliability scores were not consistently acceptable for both coding attempts at the system level (M_T1 = 68.8%; M_T2 = 73.9%), and were poor at the descriptor level (M_T1 = 58.5%; M_T2 = 64.1%). Mean criterion referenced validity scores at the system level were acceptable (M_T1 = 73.9%; M_T2 = 75.3%). However, they were not consistently acceptable at the descriptor level (M_T1 = 67.6%; M_T2 = 70.8%). Overall, the results indicate that the classification scheme does not currently satisfy reliability and validity requirements, and that further work is required. The implications for the design and development of contributing factors classification schemes are discussed.

Development of the major trauma case review tool

Background

As many as half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive the recommended care, with variance in preventable mortality reported across the globe. This variance highlights the need for a comprehensive process for monitoring and reviewing patient care, central to which is a consistent peer-review process that includes trauma system safety and human factors. There is no published, evidence-informed standardised tool that considers these factors for use in adult or paediatric trauma case peer-review. The aim of this research was to develop and validate a trauma case review tool to facilitate clinical review of paediatric trauma patient care in extracting information to facilitate monitoring, inform change and enable loop closure.

Methods

Development of the trauma case review tool was multi-faceted, beginning with a review of the trauma audit tool literature. Data were extracted from the literature to inform iterative tool development using a consensus approach. Inter-rater agreement was assessed for both the pilot and finalised versions of the tool.

Results

The final trauma case review tool contained ten sections, including patient factors (such as pre-existing conditions), presenting problem, a timeline of events, factors contributing to the care delivery problem (including equipment, work environment, staff action, organizational factors), positive aspects of care and the outcome of panel discussion. After refinement, the inter-rater reliability of the human factors and outcome components of the tool improved with an average 86% agreement between raters.

Discussion

This research developed an evidence-informed tool for use in paediatric trauma case review that considers both system safety and human factors to facilitate clinical review of trauma patient care.

Conclusions

This tool can be used to identify opportunities for improvement in trauma care and guide quality assurance activities. Validation is required in the adult population.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-017-0353-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Application of a human factors classification framework for patient safety to identify precursor and contributing factors to adverse clinical incidents in hospital

This study aimed to identify temporal precursor and associated contributing factors for adverse clinical incidents in a hospital setting using the Human Factors Classification Framework (HFCF) for patient safety. A random sample of 498 clinical incidents were reviewed. The framework identified key precursor events (PE), contributing factors (CF) and the prime causes of incidents. Descriptive statistics and correspondence analysis were used to examine incident characteristics. Staff action was the most common type of PE identified. Correspondence analysis for all PEs that involved staff action by error type showed that rule-based errors were strongly related to performing medical or monitoring tasks or the administration of medication. Skill-based errors were strongly related to misdiagnoses. Factors relating to the organisation (66.9%) or the patient (53.2%) were the most commonly identified CFs. The HFCF for patient safety was able to identify patterns of causation for the clinical incidents, highlighting the need for targeted preventive approaches, based on an understanding of how and why incidents occur.