'Strangers in a strange land': Understanding professional challenges for human factors/ergonomics and healthcare.

Human Factors and ergonomics (HFE) expertise continues to have difficulty integrating its experts into healthcare. This persistent disconnect is compounded by unique aspects of healthcare as an institution, industry and work system. Clinically-embedded HFE practitioners, a new HFE sub-specialty, are a conduit for addressing substantive mismatches between the two domains. Greater HFE penetration will require a fundamental change in stance for both domains, however, the burden will lie with HFE to be the more adaptive of the two. Learning more about the in situ work of this sub-specialty will provide insights for more nuanced approaches to bridging domain specific mismatches and obstacles.

Patient Safety/Quality Improvement Primer, Part II: Prevention of Harm Through Root Cause Analysis and Action (RCA2).

With increasing emphasis on patient safety/quality improvement, health care systems are mirroring industry in the implementation of root cause analysis (RCA) for the identification and mitigation of errors. RCA uses a team approach with emphasis on the system, as opposed to the individual, to accrue empirical data on what happened and why. While many otolaryngologists have a broad understanding of RCA, practical experience is often lacking. Part II of this patient safety/quality improvement primer investigates the manner in which RCA is utilized in the prevention of medical errors. Attention is given to identifying system errors, recording adverse events, and determining which events warrant RCA. The primer outlines steps necessary to conduct an effective RCA, with emphasis placed on actions that arise from the RCA process through the root cause analysis and action (or RCA2) rubric. In addition, the article provides strategies for the implementation of RCA into clinical practice and medical education.

Usability testing of a smartphone-based retinal camera among first-time users in the primary care setting.

Smartphone-based retinal photography is a promising method for increasing accessibility of retinal screening in the primary care and community settings. Recent work has focused on validating its use in detection of diabetic retinopathy. However, retinal imaging can be technically challenging and additional work is needed to improve ease of retinal imaging in the primary care setting. We therefore performed usability testing of a smartphone-based retinal camera, RetinaScope, among medical assistants in primary care who had never performed retinal imaging. A total of 24 medical assistants performed first-time imaging in a total of five rounds of testing, and iterative improvements to the device were made between test rounds based on the results. The time to acquire a single ~50 degree image of the posterior pole of a model eye decreased from 283 ± 60 seconds to 34 ± 17 seconds (p < 0.01) for first-time users. The time to acquire 5 overlapping images of the retina decreased from 325 ± 60 seconds to 118 ± 26 seconds (p = 0.02) for first-time users. Testing in the human eye demonstrated that a single wide-view retinal image could be captured in 65 ± 7 seconds and 5 overlapping images in 229 ± 114 seconds. Users reported high Systems Usability Scores of 86 ± 13 throughout the rounds, reflecting a high level of comfort in first-time operation of the device. Our study demonstrates that smartphone-based retinal photography has the potential to be quickly adopted among medical assistants in the primary care setting.

Root Cause Analysis and Actions for the Prevention of Medical Errors: Quality Improvement and Resident Education.

The quality of care delivered by orthopedic surgeons continues to grow in importance. Multiple orthopedic programs, organizations, and committees have been created to measure the quality of surgical care and reduce the incidence of medical adverse events. Structured root cause analysis and actions (RCA2) has become an area of interest. If performed thoroughly, RCA2 has been shown to reduce surgical errors across many subspecialties. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has a new mandate for programs to involve residents in quality improvement processes. Resident engagement in the RCA2 process has the dual benefit of educating trainees in patient safety and producing meaningful changes to patient care that may not occur with traditional quality improvement initiatives. The RCA2 process described in this article can provide a model for the development of quality improvement programs. In this article, the authors discuss the history and methods of the RCA2 process, provide a stepwise approach, and give a case example. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(4):e628-e635.].

Development and Application of a Clinical Microsystem Simulation Methodology for Human Factors-Based Research of Alarm Fatigue.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop a clinical microsystem simulation methodology for alarm fatigue research with a human factors engineering (HFE) assessment framework and (2) to explore its application to the comparative examination of different approaches to patient monitoring and provider notification. BACKGROUND: Problems with the design, implementation, and real-world use of patient monitoring systems result in alarm fatigue. A multidisciplinary team is developing an open-source tool kit to promote bedside informatics research and mitigate alarm fatigue. METHOD: Simulation, HFE, and computer science experts created a novel simulation methodology to study alarm fatigue. Featuring multiple interconnected simulated patient scenarios with scripted timeline, "distractor" patient care tasks, and triggered true and false alarms, the methodology incorporated objective metrics to assess provider and system performance. Developed materials were implemented during institutional review board-approved study sessions that assessed and compared an experimental multiparametric alerting system with a standard monitor telemetry system for subject response, use characteristics, and end-user feedback. RESULTS: A four-patient simulation setup featuring objective metrics for participant task-related performance and response to alarms was developed along with accompanying structured HFE assessment (questionnaire and interview) for monitor systems use testing. Two pilot and four study sessions with individual nurse subjects elicited true alarm and false alarm responses (including diversion from assigned tasks) as well as nonresponses to true alarms. In-simulation observation and subject questionnaires were used to test the experimental system's approach to suppressing false alarms and alerting providers. CONCLUSIONS: A novel investigative methodology applied simulation and HFE techniques to replicate and study alarm fatigue in controlled settings for systems assessment and experimental research purposes.

How to perform a root cause analysis for workup and future prevention of medical errors: a review.

Providing quality patient care is a basic tenant of medical and surgical practice. Multiple orthopaedic programs, including The Patient Safety Committee of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), have been implemented to measure quality of surgical care, as well as reduce the incidence of medical errors. Structured Root Cause Analysis (RCA) has become a recent area of interest and, if performed thoroughly, has been shown to reduce surgical errors across many subspecialties. There is a paucity of literature on how the process of a RCA can be effectively implemented. The current review was designed to provide a structured approach on how to conduct a formal root cause analysis. Utilization of this methodology may be effective in the prevention of medical errors.

In situ medical simulation investigation of emergency department procedural sedation with randomized trial of experimental bedside clinical process guidance intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Patient safety during emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS) can be difficult to study. Investigators sought to delineate and experimentally assess EDPS performance and safety practices of senior-level emergency medicine residents through in situ simulation. METHODS: Study sessions used 2 pilot-tested EDPS scenarios with critical action checklists, institutional forms, embedded probes, and situational awareness questionnaires. An experimental informatics system was separately developed for bedside EDPS process guidance. Postgraduate year 3 and 4 subjects completed both scenarios in randomized order; only experimental subjects were provided with the experimental system during second scenarios. RESULTS: Twenty-four residents were recruited into a control group (n = 12; 6.2 ± 7.4 live EDPS experience) and experimental group (n = 12; 11.3 ± 8.2 live EDPS experience [P = 0.10]). Critical actions for EDPS medication selection, induction, and adverse event recognition with resuscitation were correctly performed by most subjects. Presedation evaluations, sedation rescue preparation, equipment checks, time-outs, and documentation were frequently missed. Time-outs and postsedation assessments increased during second scenarios in the experimental group. Emergency department procedural sedation safety probe detection did not change across scenarios in either group. Situational awareness scores were 51% ± 7% for control group and 58% ± 12% for experimental group. Subjects using the experimental system completed more time-outs and scored higher Simulation EDPS Safety Composite Scores, although without comprehensive improvements in EDPS practice or safety. CONCLUSIONS: Study simulations delineated EDPS and assessed safety behaviors in senior emergency medicine residents, who exhibited the requisite medical knowledge base and procedural skill set but lacked some nontechnical skills that pertain to emergency department microsystem functions and patient safety. The experimental system exhibited limited impact only on in-simulation time-out compliance.

Locating Errors Through Networked Surveillance: A Multimethod Approach to Peer Assessment, Hazard Identification, and Prioritization of Patient Safety Efforts in Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to develop a scientifically sound and feasible peer-to-peer assessment model that allows health-care organizations to evaluate patient safety in cardiovascular operating rooms and to establish safety priorities for improvement. METHODS: The locating errors through networked surveillance study was conducted to identify hazards in cardiac surgical care. A multidisciplinary team, composed of organizational sociology, organizational psychology, applied social psychology, clinical medicine, human factors engineering, and health services researchers, conducted the study. We used a transdisciplinary approach, which integrated the theories, concepts, and methods from each discipline, to develop comprehensive research methods. Multiple data collection was involved: focused literature review of cardiac surgery-related adverse events, retrospective analysis of cardiovascular events from a national database in the United Kingdom, and prospective peer assessment at 5 sites, involving survey assessments, structured interviews, direct observations, and contextual inquiries. A nominal group methodology, where one single group acts to problem solve and make decisions was used to review the data and develop a list of the top priority hazards. RESULTS: The top 6 priority hazard themes were as follows: safety culture, teamwork and communication, infection prevention, transitions of care, failure to adhere to practices or policies, and operating room layout and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We integrated the theories and methods of a diverse group of researchers to identify a broad range of hazards and good clinical practices within the cardiovascular surgical operating room. Our findings were the basis for a plan to prioritize improvements in cardiac surgical care. These study methods allowed for the comprehensive assessment of a high-risk clinical setting that may translate to other clinical settings.

Standardized MR terminology and reporting of implants and devices as recommended by the American College of Radiology Subcommittee on MR Safety.

Considerable confusion exists among the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging user community as to how to determine whether a patient with a metal implanted device can be safely imaged in an MR imaging unit. Although there has been progress by the device manufacturers in specifying device behavior in a magnetic field, and some MR imaging manufacturers provide maps of the "spatial gradients," there remains significant confusion because of the lack of standardized terminology and reporting guidelines. The American College of Radiology, through its Subcommittee on MR Safety, has proposed standardized terminology that will contribute to greater safety and understanding for screening metal implants and/or devices prior to MR imaging.

ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013.

Because there are many potential risks in the MR environment and reports of adverse incidents involving patients, equipment and personnel, the need for a guidance document on MR safe practices emerged. Initially published in 2002, the ACR MR Safe Practices Guidelines established de facto industry standards for safe and responsible practices in clinical and research MR environments. As the MR industry changes the document is reviewed, modified and updated. The most recent version will reflect these changes.

Pilot-phase findings from high-fidelity In Situ medical simulation investigation of emergency department procedural sedation.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS) is becoming widespread. Simulation may enhance patient safety through evidence-based training, effective assessment, and research of EDPS operators in pertinent knowledge, skills, processes, and teamwork. METHODS: Investigators developed a 2-scenario in situ simulation-based methodology and research tool kit for objective examination of EDPS practice. The emphasis was on protocol-driven presedation preparation, intrasedation vigilance and readiness for adverse events, and postsedation reassessment. Pilot sessions were conducted to test the methodology at an academic 719-bed hospital, with Institutional Review Board approval. RESULTS: Five interns and 5 attending emergency physicians completed pilot sessions resulting in protocol revisions to optimize simulation consistency, research tool sets, data acquisition, and operational conditions. Pilot data sets demonstrated interscenario consistency and intersubject reproducibility for timing, progression, and duration of critical EDPS events; high levels of perceived realism and relevance; and utility and suggested validity of the study methodology as an EDPS research mechanism. Small sample sizes limited the study methodology's ability to distinguish between the subject groups' clinical performances (critical action completion, probe detection, and situational awareness) except with composite scoring of presedation and postsedation assessments. Key EDPS preparation, adverse event management, and reassessment actions were selected to derive a Simulation EDPS Safety Composite Score that differentiated inexperienced [4.60 ± 0.8 on a 10-point score (n = 3)] and experienced EDPS operators [8.95 ± 1.03 (n = 5); P = 0.0007]. CONCLUSIONS: In situ simulation is a useful and relevant means to investigate EDPS patient safety. Pilot sessions have cleared the way for further experimental safety intervention research and development with the simulation-based methodology.

Rebound in ventilator-associated pneumonia rates during a prevention checklist washout period.

OBJECTIVE To describe the washout effect after stopping a prevention checklist for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS VAP rates were prospectively monitored for special cause variation over 42 months in a paediatric intensive care unit. A VAP prevention bundle was implemented, consisting of head of bed elevation, oral care, suctioning device management, ventilator tubing care, and standard infection control precautions. Key practices of the bundle were implemented with a checklist and subsequently incorporated into the nursing and respiratory care bedside flow sheets to achieve long-term sustainability. Compliance with the VAP bundle was monitored throughout. The timeline for the project was retrospectively categorised into the benchmark phase, the checklist phase (implementation), the checklist washout phase, and the flowsheet phase (cues in the flowsheet). RESULTS During the checklist phase (12 months), VAP bundle compliance rose from <50% to >75% and the VAP rate fell from 4.2 to 0.7 infections per 1000 ventilator days (p<0.059). Unsolicited qualitative feedback from frontline staff described overburdensome documentation requirements, form fatigue, and checklist burnout. During the checklist washout phase (4 months), VAP rates rose to 4.8 infections per 1000 ventilator days (p<0.042). In the flowsheet phase, the VAP rate dropped to 0.8 infections per 1000 ventilator days (p<0.047). CONCLUSIONS Salient cues to drive provider behaviour towards best practice are helpful to sustain process improvement, and cessation of such cues should be approached warily. Initial education, year-long habit formation, and effective early implementation demonstrated no appreciable effect on the VAP rate during the checklist washout period.

Competence in patient safety: a multifaceted experiential educational intervention for resident physicians.

BACKGROUND: The need to provide efficient, effective, and safe patient care is of paramount importance. However, most physicians receive little or no formal training to prepare them to address patient safety challenges within their clinical practice. METHODS: We describe a comprehensive Patient Safety Learning Program (PSLP) for internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics residents. The curriculum is designed to teach residents key concepts of patient safety and provided opportunities to apply these concepts in the "real" world in an effort to positively transform patient care. Residents were assigned to faculty expert-led teams and worked longitudinally to identify and address patient safety conditions and problems. The PSLP was assessed by using multiple methods. RESULTS: Resident team-based projects resulted in changes in several patient care processes, with the potential to improve clinical outcomes. However, faculty evaluations of residents were lower for the Patient Safety Improvement Project rotation than for other rotations. Comments on "unsatisfactory" evaluations noted lack of teamwork, project participation, and/or responsiveness to faculty communication. Participation in the PSLP did not change resident or faculty attitudes toward patient safety, as measured by a comprehensive survey, although there was a slight increase in comfort with discussing medical errors. CONCLUSIONS: Development of the PSLP was intended to create a supportive environment to enhance resident education and involve residents in patient safety initiatives, but it produced lower faculty evaluations of resident for communication and professionalism and did not have the intended positive effect on resident or faculty attitudes about patient safety. Further research is needed to design or refine interventions that will develop more proactive resident learners and shift the culture to a focus on patient safety.

Handoffs and communication: the underappreciated roles of situational awareness and inattentional blindness.

We are all "hard wired" to have limited ability to quickly and accurately communicate and work with each other. These limitations are especially acute in our urgent, stressful, and interruption-filled world. New views on these limitations include phenomena-like situational awareness and inattentional blindness. Development and testing of communication tools and interventions to improve communication and handoffs has undergone some research evaluation, but is mainly evidence-guided. Understanding human limitations in ability to communicate will help us create, test, and continually judge communication tools, especially automation and team training.

Findings of the first consensus conference on medical emergency teams.

BACKGROUND: Studies have established that physiologic instability and services mismatching precede adverse events in hospitalized patients. In response to these considerations, the concept of a Rapid Response System (RRS) has emerged. The responding team is commonly known as a medical emergency team (MET), rapid response team (RRT), or critical care outreach (CCO). Studies show that an RRS may improve outcome, but questions remain regarding the benefit, design elements, and advisability of implementing a MET system. METHODS: In June 2005 an International Conference on Medical Emergency Teams (ICMET) included experts in patient safety, hospital medicine, critical care medicine, and METs. Seven of 25 had no experience with an RRS, and the remainder had experience with one of the three major forms of RRS. After preconference telephone and e-mail conversations by the panelists in which questions to be discussed were characterized, literature reviewed, and preliminary answers created, the panelists convened for 2 days to create a consensus document. Four major content areas were addressed: What is a MET response? Is there a MET syndrome? What are barriers to METS? How should outcome be measured? Panelists considered whether all hospitals should implement an RRS. RESULTS: Patients needing an RRS intervention are suddenly critically ill and have a mismatch of resources to needs. Hospitals should implement an RRS, which consists of four elements: an afferent, "crisis detection" and "response triggering" mechanism; an efferent, predetermined rapid response team; a governance/administrative structure to supply and organize resources; and a mechanism to evaluate crisis antecedents and promote hospital process improvement to prevent future events.

Who left the defibrillator on?

BACKGROUND: Two related scenarios involving defibrillator devices reveal how inadvertent hazardous design can go unnoticed until engineers or patient safety personnel use human factors engineering (HFE) analysis. The first adverse event, in which the device was inadvertently turned off while being used to externally pace the patient's heart, resulted in an increased length of stay. The second scenario describes a similar close call and the useless acts of sanctioning the nurse and firing the engineer technician. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Feedback to the end user about a device's status is an important design issue. It does not take much expertise to detect when there are problems with "dialogue" from the device to the person (that is, feedback). Many HFE issues have been cited in emergency care areas, and many medical devices--not just defibrillators--do not have readable and understandable feedback to the end user or the kind of automation that would make the wrong action harder to accomplish. All the interactions of multifunction devices with end users in a hectic, noisy, and dynamic environment need to be usability tested and validated. Nurses and engineering personnel can be trained to more easily see HFE design issues--and not dismiss them as individual failings or "someone else's job." Medical device companies are starting to follow the guidelines and regulations that should help prevent adverse events. CONCLUSION: The defibrillator's design problems had successfully masqueraded as "expected" glitches with hospital electrical utilities, personnel shortcomings, and personality problems. Adverse events related to seemingly simple devices can be prevented with HFE analysis.

Conclusion: You need human factors engineering expertise to see design hazards that are hiding in "plain sight!".

BACKGROUND: The Human Factors Engineering (HFE) series was launched to share the ideas and methods to aid deeper analyses of adverse events and provide tools to ensure more effective and lasting therapies. Articles in the series showed how human limitations and capabilities were important design issues in a variety of areas, ranging from labels and warnings to work place design and complex decision support systems. REMAINING QUESTIONS: After reading all the articles, one might ask a number of questions, such as who made all our "puzzle rooms?" How did it happen that so many device components "masquerade" as each other yet perform very distinct functions? What are the procurement systems that gave us medication containers, tubing, and connectors that are hard to see and easy to misconnect? Behind all those questions remains a key query: what stands in the way of developing or hiring the expertise to see and fix these catastrophic design hazards "hiding in plain sight?" SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: HFE has already found its way into health care organizations and industry. As with most large changes in professions and industries, many small steps will need to be taken toward applying HFE methods and principles to the large problems of patient safety. But there already ample incentives and tools to start transforming your health care delivery or manufacturing organization.