Transforming clients into experts-by-experience: A pilot in client participation in Dutch long-term elderly care homes inspectorate supervision.

As experts-by-experience, clients are thought to give specific input for and legitimacy to regulatory work. In this paper we track a 2017 pilot by the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate that aimed to use experiential knowledge in risk regulation through engaging with clients of long-term elderly care homes. Through an ethnographic inquiry we evaluate the design of this pilot. We find how the pilot transforms selected clients into experts-by-experience through training and site visits. In this transformation, clients attempt, and fail, to bring to the fore their definitions of quality and safety, negating their potentially specific contributions. Paradoxically, in their attempts to expose valid new knowledge on the quality of care, the pilot constructs the experts-by-experience in such a way that this knowledge is unlikely to be opened up. Concurrently, we find that in their attempts to have their input seen as valid, experts-by-experience downplay the value of their experiential knowledge. Thus, we show how dominating, legitimated interpretations of (knowledge about) quality of care resonate in experimental regulatory practices that explicitly try to move beyond them, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic and reflexive engagement with clients in the supervision of long-term elderly care.

[Demonstrating patient safety requires acceptance of a broader scientific palette]. / Aantonen patiëntveiligheid vergt acceptatie van breder wetenschapspalet.

It is high time the medical community recognised that patient-safety research can be assessed using other scientific methods than the traditional medical ones. There is often a fundamental mismatch between the methodology of patient-safety research and the methodology used to assess the quality of this research. One example is research into the reliability and validity of record review as a method for detecting adverse events. This type of research is based on logical positivism, while record review itself is based on social constructivism. Record review does not lead to "one truth": adverse events are not measured on the basis of the records themselves, but by weighing the probability of certain situations being classifiable as adverse events. Healthcare should welcome behavioural and social sciences to its scientific palette. Restricting ourselves to the randomised control trial paradigm is short-sighted and dangerous; it deprives patients of much-needed improvements in safety.

Prospective risk analysis of health care processes: a systematic evaluation of the use of HFMEA in Dutch health care.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) in Dutch health care by means of user feedback. Thirteen HFMEA analyses of various health care processes were successfully concluded and on average took 69 person-hours (excluding reporting). These results show that HFMEA can successfully be applied in Dutch health care. However, the user feedback also uncovered several perceived drawbacks, such as the fact that HFMEA is very time-consuming and that, particularly, the risk assessment part of HFMEA is difficult to carry out. Moreover, a lack of guidance with regard to the identification of failure mode causes and effective actions might influence the quality of the outcomes of an HFMEA analysis. Several suggestions are put forward to improve the perceived utility and acceptance of HFMEA. Nevertheless, future research is necessary to evaluate the actual effects of these recommendations. Error modelling and risk analysis, and their contribution to explaining human performance in socio-technical systems, traditionally belong to the field of ergonomics. The user feedback on HFMEA and the suggestions that are put forward may also be useful for (H)FMEA and hazard analysis and critical control point applications in sectors other than health care.

Health Care Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: a useful proactive risk analysis in a pediatric oncology ward.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric inpatient settings are known for their high medication error rate. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the Health Care Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) is a valid proactive method to evaluate circumscribed health care processes like prescription up to and including administration of chemotherapy (vincristine) in the pediatric oncology inpatient setting. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team consisting of a team leader, pharmacy, nursing and medical staff and a patient's parent was assembled in a pediatric oncology ward with a computerized physician order entry system. A flow diagram of the process was made and potential failure modes were identified and evaluated using a hazard scoring matrix. Using a decision tree, it was determined for which failure mode recommendations had to be made. RESULTS: The process was divided into three main parts: prescription, processing by the pharmacy, and administration. Fourteen out of 61 failure modes were classified as high risk, 10 of which were sufficiently covered by current protocols. For the other four failure modes, five recommendations were made. Four additional recommendations were made concerning non-high risk failure modes. Most of them were implemented by the hospital management. The whole process took seven meetings and a total of 140 man-hours. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic approach of HFMEA by a multidisciplinary team is a useful method for detecting failure modes. A patient or a parent of a patient contributes to the multidisciplinarity of the team.