Skip to main content

The Problem with Traditional Accident Models to Investigate Patient Safety Incidents in Healthcare

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Industrial Engineering in the Big Data Era

Abstract

In healthcare, a number of patients experience incidents, where accident models have been used to understand such incidents. However, it has been often traditional accident models used to understand how incidents might occur and how future incidents can be prevented. While other industries also use traditional accident models and built incident investigation techniques based on the traditional models, such models and techniques have been criticised to be insufficient to understand and investigate incidents in complex systems. This paper provides insight into the understanding of patient safety incidents by highlighting the problems with traditional accident models to investigate patient safety incidents, and gives a number of recommendations. We hope that this paper would trigger further discussions on the fundamental concept of the incident investigations in healthcare.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Alm, H., & Woltjer, R. (2010). Patient safety investigation through the lens of FRAM. In D. de Waard, A. Axelsson, M. Berglund, B. Peters, & C. Weikert (Eds.), Human factors: A system view of human, technology and organisation (pp. 153–165). Maastricht, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, G. R. (2004). The Canadian adverse events study: The incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 1678–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barach, P., & Small, S. D. (2000). Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: Lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ, 320(7237), 759–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Card, A. J. (2017). The problem with ‘5 Whys’. BMJ Quality and Safety, 26, 671–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carthey, J. (2013). Understanding safety in healthcare: The system evolution, erosion and enhancement model. Journal of Public Health Research, 2(e25), 144–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Chemical Process Safety. (2010). Incident investigation phase an illustration of the FMEA and HRA methods. In Guidelines for hazard evaluation procedures, (3rd ed., pp. 435–50). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatzimichailidou, M. M., Ward, J., Horberry, T., & Clarkson, P. J. (2017). A comparison of the bow-tie and STAMP approaches to reduce the risk of surgical instrument retention. Risk Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clay-Williams, R., & Colligan, L. (2015). Back to basics: Checklists in aviation and healthcare. BMJ Quality and Safety, 24, 428–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clay-Williams, R., Jeanette, H., & Hollnagel, E. (2015). Where the rubber meets the road: Using FRAM to align work-as-imagined with work-as-done when implementing clinical guidelines. Implementation Science, 10, 125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2014). The concise NHS handbook. London: NHS Confederation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekker, S. (2002). The field guide to human error investigations. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • England, N. H. S. (2015). Serious incident framework: Supporting learning to prevent recurrence. London: NHS England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, C. W., Batalden, P. B., & Goldmann, D. A. (2014). A ‘work smarter, not harder’ approach to improving healthcare quality. BMJ Quality and Safety, 24, 100–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, H. W. (1931). Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E. (2004). Barriers and accident prevention. Surrey: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E., Hounsgaard, J., & Colligan, L. (2014). FRAM—The functional resonance analysis method—A handbook for the practical use of the method. Middelfart.

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Commons. (2015). HC 886: Investigating clinical incidents in the NHS. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y.-H., Ljung, M., Sandin, J., & Hollnagel, E. (2004). Accident models for modern road traffic: Changing times creates new demands. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1, 276–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klockner, K., & Toft, Y. (2015). Accident modelling of railway safety occurrences: The safety and failure event network (SAFE-Net) method. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1734–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landgrigan, C. P., Parry, G. J., Bones, C. B., Hackbarth, A. D., Goldmann, D. A., Sharek, P. J., et al. (2010). Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(22), 2124–2134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larouzée, J., & Guarnieri, F. (2015). From theory to practice: Itinerary of reasons’ Swiss Cheese Model. In L. Podofillini, B. Sudret, B. Stojadinovic, E. Zio, & W. Kroger (Eds.), Safety and reliability of complex engineered systems: ESREL 2015 (pp. 817–824). Zurich: Switzerland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton, R., & Parker, D. (2002). Barriers to incident reporting in a health care system. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 11, 15–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson, N. (2004). A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety Science, 42(4), 237–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leveson. (2011). Engineering a safer world: Systems thinking applied to safety. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leveson, N., Samost, A., Dekker, S., Finkelstein, S., & Raman, J. (2016). A systems approach to analyzing and preventing hospital adverse events. Journal of Patient Safety, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luxhoj, J. T., & Kauffeld, K. (2003). Evaluating the effect of technology insertion into the national airspace system. The Rutgers Scholar, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrae, C. (2016). The problem with incident reporting. BMJ Quality and Safety, 25, 71–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, I., Schuster, A., Smith, K., Pronovost, P., & Wu, A. (2016). Patient safety incident reporting: A qualitative study of thoughts and perceptions of experts 15 years after ‘to err is human’. BMJ Quality and Safety, 25, 92–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullai, A., & Paulsson, U. (2011). A grounded theory model for analysis of marine accidents. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 1590–1603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (2015). About reporting patient safety incidents. National Health Service. 2015. http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/report-a-patient-safety-incident/about-reporting-patient-safety-incidents/.

  • Pawlicki, T., Samost, A., Brown, D. W., Manger, R. P., Kim, G.-Y., & Leveson, N. (2016). Application of systems and control theory-based hazard analysis to radiation oncology. Medical Physics, 43(3), 1514–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peerally, M. F., Carr, S., Waring, J., & Dixon-Woods, M. (2016). The problem with root cause analysis. BMJ Quality and Safety, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perneger, T. V. (2005). The Swiss Cheese Model of safety incidents: Are there holes in the metaphor? BMC Health Services Research, 5 (71).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27, 183–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1997a). The organisational accident. New York: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320: 768–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J. (1997b). Managing the risks of organisational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reason, J., Hollnagel, E., & Paries, J. (2006). Revisiting the Swiss Cheese Model of accidents. Eurocontrol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roelen, A. L. C., Lin, P. H., & Hale, A. R. (2011). Accident models and organisational factors in air transport: The need for multi-method models. Safety Science, 49, 5–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sari, A. B.-A., Sheldon, T. A., Cracknell, A., & Turnbull, A. (2007). Sensitivity of routine system for reporting patient safety incidents in an NHS hospitals: Retrospective patient case note review. BMJ, 334(79).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system-HFACS. Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shorrock, S., Young, M., & Faulkner, J. (2005, January). Who moved my (Swiss) Cheese? Aircraft and Aerospace, 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIA. (2012). Models of causation: Safety. Victoria: Safety Institute of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sujan, M., Spurgeon, P., Cooke, M. Weale, A., Debenham, P., & Cross, S. (2015). The development of safety cases for healthcare services: Practical experiences, opportunities and challenges. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 140, 200–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, C. (2007). Incident reporting and patient safety. BMJ, 334(7584), 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent. (2010). Patient safety (2nd ed). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, C., & Amalberti, R. (2016). Safer healthcare: Strategies for the real world (pp. 1–157). London: Springer Open.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward, S., Randall, S., Hoey, A., & Bishop, R. (2004). Seven steps to patient safety. London: National Patient Safety Agency.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gulsum Kubra Kaya .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kaya, G.K., Canbaz, H.T. (2019). The Problem with Traditional Accident Models to Investigate Patient Safety Incidents in Healthcare. In: Calisir, F., Cevikcan, E., Camgoz Akdag, H. (eds) Industrial Engineering in the Big Data Era. Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03317-0_39

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03317-0_39

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-03316-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-03317-0

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics