Proactive, Transdisciplinary Safer-System Redesign. A Field Report from the Hospital Frontline

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONS Safety science disciplines, such as Systems Engineering, Human Factors and Ergonomics, or Design Thinking, promise to deliver a breakthrough in proactive, safer systems redesign. But what does the work with clinicians look like when redesigning systems for safer, more effective patient-centered care? The Stanford Health Care Advancing Patient Safety Program is trailblazing by integrating safety science experts and systems designers into clinical practice. This application report provides an overview of the structure, the approach, and methodology, as well as the lessons learned of the program. Two use case examples of analyzing and redesigning complex clinical work systems—the safe administration of blood and blood products and the standardization of set-up and management of cerebrospinal fluid drainage systems—demonstrate the successful application of the human-centered design approach in clinical settings. TECHNICAL ABSTRACT Background (or Rationale): Today, most healthcare systems can be described as “compliant organizations.” However, as the patient safety movement continues to prosper, many scholars have proposed to evolve from a reactive approach toward a more proactive one that better addresses risks for preventable harm. Purpose: Proactive organizations aim to achieve resilience. Stanford Health Care is trailblazing by integrating safety science experts into clinical practice who work in tandem with clinicians to proactively design work systems for safer, more effective, patient-centered care. Methods: Adapting the human-centered design approach, a transdisciplinary team of engineers, physicians, and nurses utilizes an array of methods and tools to identify and analyze systems-related issues proactively and comprehensively, to search for and test a variety of solutions, to select the best options, implement solutions successfully, and to monitor sustainability of improvement. Results: The team-conducted projects, e.g., to improve blood administration and to standardize set-up and management of cerebrospinal fluid drainage systems. Our accomplishments so far, include the systematic examination and comprehensive description of clinical work systems, their components and interactions, successful collaboration with clinical and support services throughout the organization, and the redesign of IT systems, medical devices, and nursing procedures. The efforts also led to price reductions by 50% for a single medical device. Since the completion of the projects, we have had no related adverse patient event, no associated litigation, and the nursing and service-quality indicators are within the satisfactory target range. Conclusions: The SHC Advancing Patient Safety Program is a novel endeavor that analyzes systems issues in an organization-wide manner, executes improvement work in a comprehensive and integrated fashion, is a conduit for innovation, and is a medium for breaking through boundaries and silos thus fostering deeper collaboration among disciplines.

[1]  Robert L. Wears,et al.  Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts , 2006, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[2]  Jeffrey Braithwaite,et al.  Resilient health care: turning patient safety on its head. , 2015, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[3]  Sulfikar Amir,et al.  Sociotechnical Resilience: A Preliminary Concept , 2018, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[4]  K. Z. Pedersen Standardisation or resilience? The paradox of stability and change in patient safety. , 2016, Sociology of health & illness.

[5]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design , 2000, TCHI.

[6]  Pascale Carayon,et al.  Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. , 2006, Applied ergonomics.

[7]  David W. Baker,et al.  Building the Road to High Reliability. , 2016, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[8]  Eric Mayer Design For Success A Human Centered Approach To Designing Successful Products And Systems , 2016 .

[9]  David H Peters,et al.  The application of systems thinking in health: why use systems thinking? , 2014, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[10]  P. Groenewegen,et al.  Medical practice variations , 2005 .

[11]  Tara N. Cohen,et al.  Proactive Safety Management in Trauma Care: Applying the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System , 2017, Journal for healthcare quality : official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality.

[12]  P. Carayon,et al.  SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients , 2013, Ergonomics.

[13]  A. Fyhr,et al.  From a reactive to a proactive safety approach. Analysis of medication errors in chemotherapy using general failure types , 2015, European journal of cancer care.

[14]  C. Vincent,et al.  Safer Healthcare: Strategies for the Real World , 2016 .

[15]  P. Carayon,et al.  Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model , 2006, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[16]  Amiram Gafni,et al.  Medical practice variations: what the literature tells us (or does not) about what are warranted and unwarranted variations. , 2011, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[17]  M. Chassin,et al.  High-Reliability Health Care: Getting There from Here , 2013, The Milbank quarterly.

[18]  Dean F. Sittig,et al.  Toward More Proactive Approaches to Safety in the Electronic Health Record Era. , 2017, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[19]  Peter E.D. Love,et al.  Sociotechnical attributes of safe and unsafe work systems , 2015, Ergonomics.

[20]  Dipak Chauhan Resilient health care , 2016, Ergonomics.

[21]  Albert W. Wu,et al.  Medical error: the second victim , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.