Attitudes toward medical device use errors and the prevention of adverse events.

BACKGROUND The design of a device's user interface often contributes to the chance of a user making an error in using the device. However, there is evidence that most such errors that occur in practice are attributed solely to the user and that the primary method of error prevention is to retrain the user. Yet this attitude may decrease the quality of error reports and the use of more effective error prevention strategies. A qualitative study was conducted to assess health care employees' attitudes toward device use errors and the prevention of adverse events. METHODS Twenty-six health care employees from three hospital systems, including 11 device users and 15 nonusers who had participated in infusion pump purchasing decisions were given a scenario describing a device use error involving an infusion pump. Several open-ended questions assessed what they felt led to the event and how they would prevent the event from reccurring. RESULTS The top three reported types of factors leading to the adverse event, in decreasing order of frequency, were the user, pump design problems, and lack of training. The top three prevention strategies reported by the participants were retraining the user, redesigning the device, and telling the user to be careful. DISCUSSION These results suggest that health care employees still put too much emphasis on the traditional view of blaming and retraining the user.

[1]  Todd R. Johnson,et al.  Evaluating a medical error taxonomy , 2002, AMIA.

[2]  Gill Ginsburg,et al.  Human factors engineering: A tool for medical device evaluation in hospital procurement decision-making , 2005, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[3]  David W. Bates,et al.  A controlled trial of smart infusion pumps to improve medication safety in critically ill patients* , 2005 .

[4]  John W Gosbee,et al.  Conclusion: You need human factors engineering expertise to see design hazards that are hiding in "plain sight!". , 2004, Joint Commission journal on quality and safety.

[5]  E A McConnell,et al.  Australian registered nurse medical device education: a comparison of simple vs. complex devices. , 1996, Journal of advanced nursing.

[6]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[7]  Jeffrey B Cooper,et al.  Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. 1978. , 1978, Quality & safety in health care.

[8]  L. Kohn,et al.  To Err Is Human : Building a Safer Health System , 2007 .

[9]  Sameer Malhotra,et al.  Decisions about critical events in device-related scenarios as a function of expertise , 2005, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[10]  L Grant,et al.  Medical equipment. Devices and desires. , 1998, The Health service journal.

[11]  A. Wall,et al.  Book ReviewTo Err is Human: building a safer health system Kohn L T Corrigan J M Donaldson M S Washington DC USA: Institute of Medicine/National Academy Press ISBN 0 309 06837 1 $34.95 , 2000 .

[12]  Richard I. Cook,et al.  Lost in menuspace: user interactions with complex medical devices , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[13]  Alla Keselman,et al.  Institutional decision-making to select patient care devices: identifying venues to promote patient safety , 2003, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[14]  Alla Keselman,et al.  The Role of Patient Safety in the Device Purchasing Process , 2005 .