Advertisement

Resilience Engineering, Safety, and Implications for Pediatric Care

  • Christopher NemethEmail author
Patient Safety (M Scanlon, Section Editor)
  • 2 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Patient Safety

Abstract

Purpose of review

Resilience is a concept that has become popular recently that evolved from studies of the natural environment and is used to refer to many different applications, from individuals, to communities, to systems. Resilience engineering (RE) has been developed to better understand system performance in high-risk sectors including healthcare and to use that understanding to develop promote safer operations by improving an organization’s ability to adapt. This paper describes resilience, the practice of resilience engineering (RE), and their role in pediatric care.

Recent findings

Work by Wears, Perry, Cook, Woods, Hollnagel, Fairbanks, and colleagues show the scale and scope of effort needed to understand and cultivate ways to adapt care in order to meet demand, particularly when confronted with unforeseen challenges. A case study of a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) bed management and another of PICU between-shift hand-offs provide examples of how the RE approach can be used to develop an understanding of current and potential ability to adapt pediatric care that is grounded in data.

Summary

Pediatric care can benefit from the RE approach, particularly through rigorous study of actual care settings.

Keywords

Resilience Resilience engineering Safety Research methods Intensive care 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to Erik Hollnagel, PhD, Richard Cook, MD, David Woods, PhD, and Robert Wears, MD for their insights and inspiration.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Christopher Nemeth declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Csete ME, Doyle JC. Reverse engineering of biological complexity. Science. 2002;295:1664–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sutcliffe KM, Vogus TJ. In: Cameron KS, Dutton JE, Quinn RE, editors. Positive organizational scholarship: foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler Publishers; 2003. p. 94–110.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marcellino WM, Tortorello F. “I don’t think I would have recovered:” a personal and sociocultural study of resilience among US marines. Armed Forces Soc. 2013;2014:1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X14536709 (published online 6 July 2014).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birkland T, Waterman S. The politics and policy challenges of disaster resilience. In: Nemeth C, Hollnagel E, Dekker S, editors. Preparation and restoration. Resilience engineering perspectives, 2. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruneau M, Chang S, Eguchi R, Lee G, O’Rourke T, Reinhorn A, et al. A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra. 2003;19(4):733–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley JA, Folke C, Walker B. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature. 2001;413(6856):591–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollnagel E. Prologue: the scope of resilience engineering. In: Hollnagel E, Pariès J, Woods DD, Wreathall J, editors. Resilience engineering in practice: a guidebook. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing; 2011. p. xxix–v.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hollnagel E. Disaster management, control, and resilience. In: Masys A, editor. Disaster management: enabling resilience, lecture notes in social networks. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08819-8_2.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trist E. The evolution of socio-technical systems: a conceptual and an action research program. In: Van de Ven A, Joyce W, editors. Perspectives on organizational design and behavior. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1981.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nemeth C, Klein G. The naturalistic decision making perspective. In: Cochran JJ, editor. Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2011.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weick KE. Tool retention and fatalities in wildland fire settings: conceptualizing the naturalistic. In: Salas E, Klein G, editors. Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. p. 321–36.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hollnagel E. Safety-I and safety-II: the past and future of safety management. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith KM, Valenta AL. Safety I to Safety II: a paradigm shift or more work as imagined? Comment on “false dawns and new horizons in patient safety research and practice”. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2018;7(7):671–3.  https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2018.24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scanlon MC, Karsh B-T. Value of human factors to medication and patient safety in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(6):S90–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181dd8de2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Ekstedt M, Cook RI. The Stockholm blizzard of 2012. In: Wears R, Hollnagel E, Braithwaite J, editors. Resilient health care: the resilience of everyday clinical work. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing; 2015. p. 59–73. The text is the second in a series providing case studies of resilience engineering research in healthcare. Analyses include understanding how clinicians create resilience in primary to tertiary care settings.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Woods D, Roth E. Cognitive systems engineering. In: Helander M, editor. Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1988. p. 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Nemeth C, Blomberg J, Argenta C, Serio-Melvin M, Salinas J, Pamplin J. Revealing ICU cognitive work using NDM methods. Special issue on expanding naturalistic decision making. J Cog Eng Decis Mak. 2016;10(4):350–68.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416664845 The paper describes an in-depth study of a burn ICU, and how naturalistic decision making methods were used to reveal the individual and team cognitive work that is performed there. It also shows how results were distilled into requirements and prototypes for a real-time decision and communications support system.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollnagel E. RAG – The Resilience Analysis Grid. In: Hollnagel E, Pariès J, Woods DD, Wreathall J, editors. Resilience Engineering in Practice. A Guidebook. Ashgate: Farnham; 2011.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Horsley C, Hocking C, Julian K, Culverwell P, Zidjel H. Team resilience: implementing resilient health care at Middlemore ICU. In: Hollnagel E, Braithwaite J, Wears R, editors. Delivering Resilient Healthcare. New York: Taylor and Francis/Routledge; 2019. The text follows the editors’ Resilient Healthcare Vol.2, and provides practical guidance for front line healthcare workers on how to include resilience in their routine healthcare activities. It also offers insights for managers to coordinate care and policy makers to guide organizations in the direction of more resilient performance.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hollnagel E. FRAM: the Functional Resonance Analysis ethod. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing; 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rafie K, Goldman J, Thomas T, Chartan C, Marshall P, Fontenot T, et al. Understanding complexity: using resilience engineering to optimize sepsis quality improvement. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cook R, Brandwijk M, Kahana M, O’Connor M, Brunetti V, Nemeth C. Being bumpable: consequences of resource saturation and near-saturation for cognitive demands on ICU practitioners. Proceedings of International Anesthesia Research Society National Conference. New Orleans; 2003.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nemeth C, Kowalsky J, Brandwijk M, Kahana M, Klock PA, Cook RI. Before I Forget: How clinicians cope with uncertainty through ICU sign-outs. In Dominguez C, Xiao Y, chairs. Understanding and facilitating collaboration in healthcare. Collaborative care symposium. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco; 2006. pp.939–43.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nemeth C, Kowalsky J, Brandwijk M, Kahana M, Klock PA, Cook RI. Between shifts: healthcare communications in the PICU. In: Nemeth CP, editor. Improving healthcare communications. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing; 2008. p. 135–54.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rankin A. Making Sense of Adaptations: Resilience in High-Risk Work. Doctoral dissertation No. 1823. Department of Computer and Information Science. Linköping University. Linköping, SE; 2017.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schön D. The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cook RI. How did we get here? In: Ideas to innovation: stimulating collaborations in the application of resilience engineering to healthcare. Government University industry research roundtable. The National Academies. 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; 2013.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Blumer H. Symbolic interactionism: perspectives and methods. Los Angeles: University of California Press; 1969.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Applied Research Associates, Inc.AlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations