Suppr超能文献

根本原因分析在多大程度上转化为改善患者安全:系统评价。

How Much of Root Cause Analysis Translates into Improved Patient Safety: A Systematic Review.

机构信息

Atenea Investigation Group, Fundación para el Fomento de la Investigación Sanitario y Biomédica de la Comunidad Valenciana (FISABIO), Valencia, Spain,

Department of Health Psychology, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain.

出版信息

Med Princ Pract. 2020;29(6):524-531. doi: 10.1159/000508677. Epub 2020 May 15.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to consolidate studies to determine whether root cause analysis (RCA) is an adequate method to decrease recurrence of avoidable adverse events (AAEs).

METHODS

A systematic search of databases from creation until December 2018 was performed using PubMed, Scopus and EMBASE. We included articles published in scientific journals describing the practical usefulness in and impact of RCA on the reduction of AAEs and whether professionals consider it feasible. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria. Samples included in these studies ranged from 20 to 1,707 analyses of RCAs, AAEs, recommendations, audits or interviews with professionals. The most common setting was hospitals (86%; n = 18), and the type of incident most analysed was AAEs, in 71% (n = 15) of the cases; 47% (n = 10) of the studies stated that the main weakness of RCA is its recommendations. The most common causes involved in the occurrence of AEs were communication problems among professionals, human error and faults in the organisation of the health care process. Despite the widespread implementation of RCA in the past decades, only 2 studies could to some extent establish an improvement in patient safety due to RCAs.

CONCLUSIONS

RCA is a useful tool for the identification of the remote and immediate causes of safety incidents, but not for implementing effective measures to prevent their recurrence.

摘要

目的

本系统评价的目的是整合研究结果,以确定根本原因分析(RCA)是否是降低可避免不良事件(AAE)复发的有效方法。

方法

通过对 PubMed、Scopus 和 EMBASE 数据库进行系统检索,检索时间截至 2018 年 12 月。我们纳入了描述 RCA 在减少 AAE 方面的实际有用性和影响以及专业人员是否认为其可行的科学期刊中发表的文章。使用混合方法评估工具评估研究质量。

结果

21 篇文章符合纳入标准。这些研究的样本范围从 20 到 1707 项 RCA、AAE、建议、审核或专业人员访谈分析。最常见的设置是医院(86%;n=18),分析最多的事件类型是 AAE,占 71%(n=15);47%(n=10)的研究指出 RCA 的主要弱点是其建议。涉及 AAE 发生的最常见原因是专业人员之间的沟通问题、人为错误和医疗保健过程组织中的缺陷。尽管过去几十年广泛实施了 RCA,但只有 2 项研究在一定程度上证明 RCA 可提高患者安全性。

结论

RCA 是识别安全事件的远程和直接原因的有用工具,但不能用于实施有效措施预防其复发。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

4
Medical errors can cost lives.医疗失误可能会危及生命。
Arch Med Sci. 2024 Aug 31;20(4):1378-1383. doi: 10.5114/aoms/192727. eCollection 2024.
7
Root cause analysis of safety incidents in antineoplastic use in children.抗肿瘤药物儿童用药安全事件根本原因分析。
Rev Bras Enferm. 2024 Jul 15;77Suppl 3(Suppl 3):e20230139. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2021-0139. eCollection 2024.
9
Quality indicators in respiratory therapy.呼吸治疗中的质量指标。
World J Crit Care Med. 2024 Jun 9;13(2):91794. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v13.i2.91794.

本文引用的文献

1
Root Cause? Yes of course … but then what?根本原因?没错,当然……但接下来呢?
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2019 Jun 7;43:e51. doi: 10.26633/RPSP.2019.51. eCollection 2019.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验