Suppr超能文献

医疗保健的三种前瞻性风险分析。

Three kinds of proactive risk analyses for health care.

作者信息

Coles Garill, Fuller Becky, Nordquist Kathleen, Weissenberger Steve, Anderson Leann, DuBois Brooke

机构信息

Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, Washington, USA.

出版信息

Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010 Aug;36(8):365-75. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(10)36055-7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In health care, proactive risk assessment usually takes the form of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). An applied research firm, four community hospitals, and a community health care alliance in south-central Washington State--as members of the Tri-Cities Patient Safety Coalition (TCPSC)--used proactive risk assessment methods such as event tree analysis (ETA) and hazard identification to assess the risk of adverse events associated with a process or system.

CASE STUDIES

(1) ETA of a Mental Health Issue: An assessment was performed to understand the risk presented by emergency department (ED) patients with underlying mental health or substance abuse issues. The study led hospital management to provide training in crisis prevention for staff who might be confronted with similar scenarios. (2) Hazard Identification of Patient-Owned Equipment: Following a postsurgery incident involving patient-owned equipment, equipment brought into the hospital was assessed using a hazard identification checklist. The results led one hospital to bar equipment determined to represent unacceptable potential patient harm. (3) FMEA of Interhospital Patient Transfer: Hospital patients often must be transferred to another community hospital for services (such as diagnostic imaging) and then returned-entailing many handoffs and associated patient safety issues. The FMEA and accompanying process map helped the hospitals design a form that includes patient safety-related information and that requires staff to check the patient's status.

CONCLUSIONS

The south-central Washington group has learned that other kinds of proactive risk assessment beyond FMEA that are commonly used by engineers can be used to assess the specific kinds of high-risk processes found in health care.

摘要

背景

在医疗保健领域,主动风险评估通常采用失效模式与效应分析(FMEA)的形式。华盛顿州中南部的一家应用研究公司、四家社区医院和一个社区医疗联盟——作为三城患者安全联盟(TCPSC)的成员——使用了诸如事件树分析(ETA)和危害识别等主动风险评估方法,来评估与某个流程或系统相关的不良事件风险。

案例研究

(1)心理健康问题的事件树分析:进行了一项评估,以了解患有潜在心理健康或药物滥用问题的急诊科(ED)患者所带来的风险。该研究促使医院管理层为可能面临类似情况的工作人员提供危机预防培训。(2)患者自备设备的危害识别:在发生一起涉及患者自备设备的术后事件后,使用危害识别清单对带入医院的设备进行了评估。结果导致一家医院禁止使用被认定存在不可接受的潜在患者伤害风险的设备。(3)医院间患者转运的失效模式与效应分析:医院患者常常必须被转至另一家社区医院接受服务(如诊断成像),然后再返回——这涉及多次交接以及相关的患者安全问题。失效模式与效应分析及附带的流程地图帮助医院设计了一种表格,其中包含与患者安全相关的信息,并要求工作人员检查患者的状况。

结论

华盛顿州中南部的这个团队了解到,工程师常用的除失效模式与效应分析之外的其他类型的主动风险评估,可用于评估医疗保健中发现的特定类型的高风险流程。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验