Toward a cognitive taxonomy of medical errors.

One critical step in addressing and resolving the problems associated with human errors is the development of a cognitive taxonomy of such errors. In the case of errors, such a taxonomy may be developed (1) to categorize all types of errors along cognitive dimensions, (2) to associate each type of error with a specific underlying cognitive mechanism, (3) to explain why, and even predict when and where, a specific error will occur, and (4) to generate intervention strategies for each type of error. Based on Reason's (1992) definition of human errors and Norman's (1986) cognitive theory of human action, we have developed a preliminary action-based cognitive taxonomy of errors that largely satisfies these four criteria in the domain of medicine. We discuss initial steps for applying this taxonomy to develop an online medical error reporting system that not only categorizes errors but also identifies problems and generates solutions.

Improving disclosure of medical errors: Including patients and family members in the disclosure process

Over the last decade, adverse events and medical errors have become a main focus of interest for the standards of quality and safety in the U.S. healthcare system (Weinstein & Henderson, 2009). Particularly when a medical error occurs, the disclosure of medical errors and its practices have become a focal point of the healthcare process. Patients and family members who have experienced a medical error might be able to provide knowledge and insight on how to improve the disclose process. However, patient and family member are not typically involved in the disclosure process, thus their experiences go unnoticed. ^ The purpose of this research was to explore how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process regarding a medical error. The research consisted of 28 qualitative interviews from three stakeholder groups: Hospital Administrators, Clinical Service Providers, and Patients and Family Members. They were asked for their ideas and suggestions on how best to include patients and family members in the disclosure process. Framework Analysis was used to analyze this data and find prevalent themes based on the primary research question. A secondary aim was to index categories created based on the interviews that were collected. Data was used from the Texas Disclosure and Compensation Study with Dr. Eric Thomas as the Principal Investigator. Full acknowledgement of access to this data is given to Dr. Thomas. ^ The themes from the research revealed that each stakeholder group was interested and open to including patients and family members in the disclosure process and that the disclosure process should not be a "one-way" avenue. The themes gave many suggestions regarding how to best include patients and family members in the disclosure process of a medical error. Secondary aims revealed several ways to assess the ideas and suggestion given by the stakeholders. Overall, acceptability of getting the perspective of patients and family members was the most common theme. Comparison of each stakeholder group revealed that including patients and family members would be beneficial to improving hospital disclosure practices. ^ Conclusions included a list of recommendations and measureable appropriate strategies that could provide hospital with key stakeholders insights on how to improve their disclosure process. Sharing patients and family members experience with healthcare providers can encourage a shift in culture where patients are valued and active in participating in hospital practices. To my knowledge, this research is the very first of its kind and moves the disclosure process conversation forward in a patient-family member inclusion direction that will assist in improving disclosure practices. Future research should implement and evaluate the success of the various inclusion strategies.^

An Extended Hierarchical Task Analysis for Error Prediction in Medical Devices

This paper introduces an extended hierarchical task analysis (HTA) methodology devised to evaluate and compare user interfaces on volumetric infusion pumps. The pumps were studied along the dimensions of overall usability and propensity for generating human error. With HTA as our framework, we analyzed six pumps on a variety of common tasks using Norman’s Action theory. The introduced method of evaluation divides the problem space between the external world of the device interface and the user’s internal cognitive world, allowing for predictions of potential user errors at the human-device level. In this paper, one detailed analysis is provided as an example, comparing two different pumps on two separate tasks. The results demonstrate the inherent variation, often the cause of usage errors, found with infusion pumps being used in hospitals today. The reported methodology is a useful tool for evaluating human performance and predicting potential user errors with infusion pumps and other simple medical devices.

Medical Error: Is the Solution Medical or Cognitive?

Is the solution for medical errors medical or cognitive? In this AMIA2001 panel on medical error, we argued that medical error is primarily an issue for cognitive science and engineering, not for medicine, although the knowledge of the practice of medicine is essential for the research and prevention of medical errors. The three panelists presented studies that demonstrate that cognitive research is the foundation for theories of medical errors and interventions of error reductions.

Evaluating a medical error taxonomy

Healthcare has been slow in using human factors principles to reduce medical errors. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) recognizes that a lack of attention to human factors during product development may lead to errors that have the potential for patient injury, or even death. In response to the need for reducing medication errors, the National Coordinating Council for Medication Errors Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) released the NCC MERP taxonomy that provides a standard language for reporting medication errors. This project maps the NCC MERP taxonomy of medication error to MedWatch medical errors involving infusion pumps. Of particular interest are human factors associated with medical device errors. The NCC MERP taxonomy of medication errors is limited in mapping information from MEDWATCH because of the focus on the medical device and the format of reporting.

The physician's perception of medical error and its application to the development of an educational training tool.

It is becoming clear that if we are to impact the rate of medical errors it will have to be done at the practicing physician level. The purpose of this project was to survey the attitude of physicians in Alabama concerning their perception of medical error, and to obtain their thoughts and desires for medical education in the area of medical errors. The information will be used in the development of a physician education program.

Second, do less harm: The state of states' medical error reporting programs

Statement of the problem and public health significance. Hospitals were designed to be a safe haven and respite from disease and illness. However, a large body of evidence points to preventable errors in hospitals as the eighth leading cause of death among Americans. Twelve percent of Americans, or over 33.8 million people, are hospitalized each year. This population represents a significant portion of at risk citizens exposed to hospital medical errors. Since the number of annual deaths due to hospital medical errors is estimated to exceed 44,000, the magnitude of this tragedy makes it a significant public health problem. ^ Specific aims. The specific aims of this study were threefold. First, this study aimed to analyze the state of the states' mandatory hospital medical error reporting six years after the release of the influential IOM report, "To Err is Human." The second aim was to identify barriers to reporting of medical errors by hospital personnel. The third aim was to identify hospital safety measures implemented to reduce medical errors and enhance patient safety. ^ Methods. A descriptive, longitudinal, retrospective design was used to address the first stated objective. The study data came from the twenty-one states with mandatory hospital reporting programs which report aggregate hospital error data that is accessible to the public by way of states' websites. The data analysis included calculations of expected number of medical errors for each state according to IOM rates. Where possible, a comparison was made between state reported data and the calculated IOM expected number of errors. A literature review was performed to achieve the second study aim, identifying barriers to reporting medical errors. The final aim was accomplished by telephone interviews of principal patient safety/quality officers from five Texas hospitals with more than 700 beds. ^ Results. The state medical error data suggests vast underreporting of hospital medical errors to the states. The telephone interviews suggest that hospitals are working at reducing medical errors and creating safer environments for patients. The literature review suggests the underreporting of medical errors at the state level stems from underreporting of errors at the delivery level. ^

Nursing-related medication errors: A review of factors that facilitate and hinder error reporting, and recommendations for improvement

Medication errors, one of the most frequent types of medical errors, are a common cause of patient harm in hospital systems today. Nurses at the bedside are in a position to encounter many of these errors since they are there at the start of the process (ordering/prescribing) and the end of the process (administration). One of the recommendations from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) report, "To Err is Human," was for organizations to identify and learn from medical errors through event reporting systems. While many organizations have reporting systems in place, research studies report a significant amount of underreporting by nurses. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify contributing factors related to the reporting and not reporting of medication errors by nurses at the bedside.^ Articles included in the literature review were primary or secondary studies, dated January 1, 2000 – July 2009, related to nursing medication error reporting. All 634 articles were reviewed with an algorithm developed to standardize the review process and help filter out those that did not meet the study criteria. In addition, 142 article bibliographies were reviewed to find additional studies that were not found in the original literature search.^ After reviewing the 634 articles and the additional 108 articles discovered in the bibliography review, 41 articles met the study criteria and were used in the systematic literature review results.^ Fear of punitive reactions to medication errors was a frequent barrier to error reporting. Nurses fear reactions from their leadership, peers, patients and their families, nursing boards, and the media. Anonymous reporting systems and departments/organizations with a strong safety culture in place helped to encourage the reporting of medication errors by nursing staff.^ Many of the studies included in this literature review do not allow results that can be generalized. The majority of them took place in single institutions/organizations with limited sample sizes. Stronger studies with larger sample sizes need to be performed, utilizing data collection methods that have been validated, to determine stronger correlations between safety cultures and nurse error reporting.^

Interruptions in Workflow for RNs in a Level One Trauma Center

An understanding of interruptions in healthcare is important for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health information systems and for the management of clinical workflow and medical errors. The purpose of this study is to identify and classify the types of interruptions experienced by Emergency Department(ED) nurses working in a Level One Trauma Center. This was an observational field study of Registered Nurses (RNs) employed in a Level One Trauma Center using the shadowing method. Results of the study indicate that nurses were both recipients and initiators of interruptions. Telephones, pagers, and face-to-face conversations were the most common sources of interruptions. Unlike other industries, the healthcare community has not systematically studied interruptions in clinical settings to determine and weigh the necessity of the interruption against their sometimes negative results such as medical errors, decreased efficiency, and increased costs. Our study presented here is an initial step to understand the nature, causes, and effects of interruptions, thereby improving both the quality of healthcare and patient safety. We developed an ethnographic data collection technique and a data coding method for the capturing and analysis of interruptions. The interruption data we collected are systematic, comprehensive, and close to exhaustive. They confirmed the findings from earlier studies by other researchers that interruptions are frequent events in critical care and other healthcare settings. We are currently using these data to analyze the workflow dynamics of ED clinicians, to identify the bottlenecks of information flow, and to develop interventions to improve the efficiency of emergency care through the management of interruptions.

Interruptions in workflow for RNs in a Level One Trauma Center.

An understanding of interruptions in healthcare is important for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health information systems and for the management of clinical workflow and medical errors. The purpose of this study is to identify and classify the types of interruptions experienced by ED nurses working in a Level One Trauma Center. This was an observational field study of Registered Nurses employed in a Level One Trauma Center using the shadowing method. Results of the study indicate that nurses were both recipients and initiators of interruptions. Telephone, pagers, and face-to-face conversations were the most common sources of interruptions. Unlike other industries, the outcomes caused by interruptions resulting in medical errors, decreased efficiency and increased cost have not been systematically studied in healthcare. Our study presented here is an initial step to understand the nature, causes, and effects of interruptions, and to develop interventions to manage interruptions to improve healthcare quality and patient safety. We developed an ethnographic data collection technique and a data coding method for the capturing and analysis of interruptions. The interruption data we collected are systematic, comprehensive, and close to exhaustive. They confirmed the findings from early studies by other researchers that interruptions are frequent events in critical care and other healthcare settings. We are currently using these data to analyze the workflow dynamics of ED clinicians, identify the bottlenecks of information flow, and develop interventions to improve the efficiency of emergency care through the management of interruptions.

Ambulatory care adverse events and preventable adverse events leading to a hospital admission.

BACKGROUND: Most healthcare in the US is delivered in the ambulatory care setting, but the epidemiology of errors and adverse events in ambulatory care is understudied. METHODS: Using the population-based data from the Colorado and Utah Medical Practices Study, we identified adverse events that occurred in an ambulatory care setting and led to hospital admission. Proportions with 95% CIs are reported. RESULTS: We reviewed 14,700-hospital discharge records and found 587 adverse events of which 70 were ambulatory care adverse events (AAEs) and 31 were ambulatory care preventable adverse events (APAEs). When weighted to the general population, there were 2608 AAEs and 1296 (44.3%) APAEs in Colorado and Utah, USA, in 1992. APAEs occurred most commonly in physicians' offices (43.1%, range 46.8-27.8), the emergency department (32.3%, 46.1-18.5) and at home (13.1%, 23.1-3.1). APAEs in day surgery were less common (7.1%, 13.6-0.6) but caused the greatest harm to patients. The types of APAEs were broadly distributed among missed or delayed diagnoses (36%, 50.2-21.8), surgery (24.1%, 36.7-11.5), non-surgical procedures (14.6%, 25.0-4.2), medication (13.1%, 23.1-3.1) and therapeutic events (12.3%, 22.0-2.6). Overall, 10% of the APAEs resulted in serious permanent injury or death. The proportion of APAEs that resulted in death was 31.8% for general internal medicine, 22.5% for family practice and 16.7% for emergency medicine. CONCLUSION: An estimated 75,000 hospitalisations per year are due to preventable adverse events that occur in outpatient settings in the US, resulting in 4839 serious permanent injuries and 2587 deaths.

The movement toward patient safety: State action related to reporting and disclosure of healthcare-associated infections

Increasing attention has been given to the problem of medical errors over the past decade. Included within that focused attention has been a strong interest in reducing the occurrence of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Acting concurrently with federal initiatives, the majority of U.S. states have statutorily required reporting and public disclosure of HAI data. Although the occurrence of these state statutory enactments and other state initiatives represent a recognition of the strong concern pertaining to HAIs, vast differences in each state’s HAI reporting and public disclosure requirements creates a varied and unequal response to what has become a national problem.^ The purpose of this research was to explore the variations in state HAI legal requirements and other state mandates. State actions, including statutory enactments, regulations, and other initiatives related to state reporting and public disclosure mechanisms were compared, discussed, and analyzed in an effort to illustrate the impact of the lack of uniformity as a public health concern.^ The HAI statutes, administrative requirements, and other mandates of each state and two U.S. territories were reviewed to answer the following seven research questions: How far has the state progressed in its HAI initiative? If the state has a HAI reporting requirement, is it mandatory or voluntary? What healthcare entities are subject to the reporting requirements? What data collection system is utilized? What measures are required to be reported? What is the public disclosure mechanism? How is the underlying reported information protected from public disclosure or other legal release?^ Secondary publicly available data, including state statutes, administrative rules, and other initiatives, were utilized to examine the current HAI-related legislative and administrative activity of the study subjects. The information was reviewed and analyzed to determine variations in HAI reporting and public disclosure laws. Particular attention was given to the seven key research questions.^ The research revealed that considerable progress has been achieved in state HAI initiatives since 2004. Despite this progress, however, when reviewing the state laws and HAI programs comparatively, considerable variations were found to exist with regards to the type of reporting requirements, healthcare facilities subject to the reporting laws, data collection systems utilized, reportable measures, public disclosure requirements, and confidentiality and privilege provisions. The wide variations in state statutes, administrative rules, and other agency directives create a fragmented and inconsistent approach to addressing the nationwide occurrence of HAIs in the U.S. healthcare system. ^

Implementing and evaluating a Web -based close call reporting system at an urban hospital

Medical errors and close calls are pervasive in health care. It is hypothesized that the causes of close calls are the same as for medical errors; therefore learning about close calls can help prevent errors and increase patient safety. Yet despite efforts to encourage close call reporting, close calls as well as medical errors are under-reported in health care. The purpose of this dissertation was to implement and evaluate a web-based anonymous close call reporting system in three units at an urban hospital. ^ The study participants were physicians, nurses and medical technicians (N = 187) who care for patients in the Medical Intermediate Care Unit, the Surgical Intermediate Care Unit, and the Coronary Catheterization Laboratory in the hospital. We provided educational information to the participants on how to use the system and e-mailed and delivered paper reminders to report to the participants throughout the 19-month project. We surveyed the participants at the beginning and at the end of the study to assess their attitudes and beliefs regarding incident reporting. We found that the majority of the health care providers in our study are supportive of incident reporting in general but in practice very few had actually reported an error or a close call, semi-structured interview 20 weeks after we made the close call reporting system available. The purpose of the interviews was to further assess the participants' attitudes regarding incident reporting and the reporting system. Our findings suggest that the health care providers are supportive of medical error reporting in general, but are not convinced of the benefit of reporting close calls. Barriers to close call reporting cited include lack of time, heavy workloads, preferring to take care of close calls "on the spot", and not seeing the benefits of close call reporting. Consequently only two = close calls were reported via the system by two separate caregivers during the project. ^ The findings suggest that future efforts to increase close call reporting must address barriers to reporting, especially the belief among care givers that it is not worth taking time from their already busy schedules to report close calls. ^