Mannion Russell, Thompson Carl
Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham, Park House, 40 Edgbaston Park Rd, Birmingham B15 2RT, UK.
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, Area 4, Seebohm Rowntree Building, York YO10 5DD, UK.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Dec;26(6):606-12. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu083. Epub 2014 Oct 15.
Key decisions in modern health care systems are often made by groups of people rather than lone individuals. However, group decision-making can be imperfect and result in organizational and clinical errors which may harm patients-a fact highlighted graphically in recent (and historical) health scandals and inquiries such as the recent report by Sir Robert Francis into the serious failures in patient care and safety at Mid Staffordshire Hospitals NHS Trust in the English NHS. In this article, we draw on theories from organization studies and decision science to explore the ways in which patient safety may be undermined or threatened in health care contexts as a result of four systematic biases arising from group decision-making: 'groupthink', 'social loafing', 'group polarization' and 'escalation of commitment'. For each group bias, we describe its antecedents, illustrate how it can impair group decisions with regard to patient safety, outline a range of possible remedial organizational strategies that can be used to attenuate the potential for adverse consequences and look forward at the emerging research agenda in this important but hitherto neglected area of patient safety research.
现代医疗保健系统中的关键决策通常由群体而非个体做出。然而,群体决策可能并不完美,会导致组织和临床失误,进而可能伤害患者——这一事实在近期(以及历史上)的医疗丑闻和调查中得到了生动体现,比如罗伯特·弗朗西斯爵士近期关于英国国民医疗服务体系(NHS)中斯塔福德郡中北部医院国民医疗服务信托基金在患者护理和安全方面严重失误的报告。在本文中,我们借鉴组织研究和决策科学的理论,探讨在医疗环境中,由于群体决策产生的四种系统性偏差,即“群体思维”“社会惰化”“群体极化”和“承诺升级”,患者安全可能会受到何种破坏或威胁。对于每种群体偏差,我们描述其成因,说明它如何在患者安全方面损害群体决策,概述一系列可用于减轻不良后果可能性的补救性组织策略,并展望这一重要但迄今被忽视的患者安全研究领域的新兴研究议程。