All posts by ThinkReliability Staff

ThinkReliability are specialists in applying root cause analysis to solve all types of problems. We investigate errors, defects, failures, losses, outages and incidents in a wide variety of industries. Our Cause Mapping analysis method of root causes, captures the complete investigation with the best solutions all in an easy to understand format. ThinkReliability provides investigation services and root cause analysis training to clients around the world and is considered the trusted authority on the subject.
Root Cause

Airman Loses Both Legs After Gallbladder Surgery

By ThinkReliability Staff

A former member of the US Air Force lost both legs after a routine gallbladder surgery and was medically retired.  During the surgery, his aorta was lacerated.  Subsequent delays meant his legs were without blood flow for hours.

After the damage to the aortic laceration was repaired, still more time passed before the patient was transferred to a civilian hospital for treatment.  The Air Force Medical Center did not have a vascular surgeon on-site.  By the time the legs were removed, the patient had lost more than 2/3 of his blood volume.

Multiple issues contributed to the injuries received by the airman.  We can examine these issues in a visual root cause analysis presented as a Cause Map.  First we determine the impacts to the goals.  The patient safety goal was impacted due to the potential for patient death during the surgery and aftermath.  Although there was no disciplinary action taken by the Air Force, a $54.8 million lawsuit has been filed that claims negligence.  Last but certainly not least, the loss of both of the patient’s legs can be considered an impact to the patient services goal.

We begin with the impacted goals and ask “Why” questions to determine the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the impacted goals.  In this case, the patient’s legs had to be removed after they were without blood flow for several hours.  The blood loss was caused by a laceration to the aorta, made during the gallbladder surgery, and the subsequent accidental suturing of the aorta during the repair.  The repair to the aorta was delayed as it was not immediately recognized.  A surgical resident was performing the operation, and it is likely inexperience and lack of supervisor from the supervising surgeon contributed to this delay.  Additionally, although the operating room staff was unable to get a blood pressure reading from the patient, it was assumed that the machine was malfunctioning. After the aorta repair, there was further delay in recognizing and treating the loss of blood flow to the legs.  As there was no vascular surgeon on-site, the patient was eventually transferred to a civilian facility, where both legs were amputated.

The facility has not commented on the case and so it is unclear what actions might be taken to protect patients.  There have been several charges of negligence at the facility in recent years.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.

Root Cause Analysis

Theft at Healthcare Facilities Puts Patient Data at Risk

By ThinkReliability Staff

There have been many reported cases of thefts at healthcare facilities that resulted in patient data being at risk.  Loss of medical equipment or patient safety data is a big issue for the involved healthcare facility, and it’s all too common.  More than half of healthcare facilities have reported at least one health data breach since 2009.  It is   estimated that 66% of reported breaches are due to theft.  (For an example of a patient privacy breach not related to theft, read our previous blog.)

Some notable thefts: more than $1 million worth of equipment (including some that contained patient information) was stolen over a two-year period from a VA Hospital in Florida.  A health insurance provider lost nine server drives, including patient and provider information  for 1.9 million people.  The theft was not reported until two months later and followed a theft two years prior of a portable disk drive which contained personal data for 1.5 million members.  We can look at the issue of theft of equipment in a proactive root cause analysis performed as a Cause Map, which allows us to visually map causes that could results in impacts to the goals.

In this case, there is the risk of impact to the patient safety goal if patient medical records are impacted.  The loss of property can be considered an impact to employees, the organization, and the property goal.  The loss of patient data can be considered an impact to the patient services and compliance goal (as compliance with privacy regulations may be affected).  In this case, we look specifically at loss of equipment and data due to theft.

Beginning with the impacted goals, we can ask “Why” questions to add detail to the Cause Map.  Loss of property can result from theft, and insufficient inventory records can contribute.  (This was noted in the case of the VA loss.)  Theft can occur within or outside a healthcare facility.   Within a facility, property can be stolen by either employees, or non-employees.  If it is determined that property was only accessed by employees, more intense background checks may be in order.  In either case, security needs to be considered.  The levels of security depend on the type of facility, type of property and data contained in various spaces, and various other factors, and should be considered for each facility individually.

Property that is stolen outside the facility is generally stolen from an employee who works off-site or has taken data off-site, and insufficiently protects the data.  If employees are allowed to have sensitive information or expensive equipment off-site, sufficient precautions must be taken, which are also dependent on the sensitivity of data, value of property, and needs of the facility.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.

Hospital Acquired Condition, Root Cause Analysis

New Research on the Impact of Hospital-Acquired Infections

By ThinkReliability Staff

Recent research has shown that in-hospital mortality for patients who acquire an infection in the hospital increases from 4.5% to 18.5%.  Hospital-acquired infections are infections obtained while a patient is hospitalized.  The three main hospital-acquired infections (or HAIs) are bloodstream infections (28% of HAIs), pneumonia (21%) and urinary tract infections (15%).

Not only does an HAI increase the mortality rate, it has other impacts as well.  We can look at these impacts, and their causes, in a root cause analysis demonstrated visually as a Cause Map.  For the purpose of this root cause analysis, we will limit our investigation to HAIs that occur during hospitalization in an intensive care unit (ICU).  We begin with determining the other impacts to the goals.  The patient safety goal is impacted due to the increase in mortality.  The organization goal is impacted because many insurers (including Medicare and Medicaid) will not reimburse for some infections obtained during hospitalization.   Additional treatment is required to treat the infection, resulting in an impact to the patient services goal.  The treatment for these infections normally results in an increased stay in the ICU (from an average of 8.1 days to 15.8 days), at a cost of $16,000.  It is estimated that 26.7% of all ICU stays result in at least one HAI.

Beginning with the impacted patient safety goal, we can ask “Why” questions to demonstrate the cause-and-effect relationships leading to the increase in mortality.  Increased mortality is due to the acquiring of an HAI.  HAIs result from the exposure to a pathogen and frequently occur in the ICU partially due to the increased risk of infection due to the underlying condition for which the patient is in the ICU.  There are two types of pathogens to which patients can be exposed: endogenous (essentially, from the patient’s own body) and exogenous (from visitors, healthcare providers, equipment, the environment, etc).  HAIs are highly related to the use of invasive support measures, which provide a path for either kind of pathogen directly into the patient’s body.  Specifically, the use of a central intravenous line is cited in 91% of bloodstream infections, mechanical ventilation is cited in 95% of hospital-acquired pneumonias, and urinary catheters are cited in 77% of urinary tract infection.

Because these invasive support measures are generally required for patient care, it’s difficult to see how these infections can be reduced.  However, some programs have been shown to substantially reduce HAIs – and the cost associated with them – by improving the culture of safety and compliance with preventive methods.  One such program in Michigan has reduced the rate of bloodstream infections associated with central lines from 7.7 to 1.3 per 1,000 catheter days.  Even without a dedicated safety program, insisting on hand washing and proper cleanliness procedures during the insertion, checking, and removal of invasive support measures can reduce the risk of HAIs.  Additionally, because the use of invasive support measures is so strongly correlated to HAIs, removal of these measures as soon as possible can also reduce the risk.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Click here to read more about hospital-acquired conditions.  Or click here to read more about the latest research.

Root Cause Analysis

Living Donor Dies During Liver Transplant

by ThinkReliability Staff

In May 2010, a living liver donor died on the operating table.  Investigation showed that there were multiple issues related to the patient’s death.  The clinic was cleared of any wrongdoing in the death – and the surgeons there don’t believe that the surgical issues contributed to the death – but the clinic was cited for  violating rules designed to inform and protect donors.

We can look at all the related issues and see the cause-and-effect relationships in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.  We begin with the impacts to the goals.  The patient death is an impact to the patient safety goal.  Patient deaths also cause impacts to related employees, which is an impact to the goals.  The citation for the violation of donor protection rules can be considered an impact to the compliance goals.  As a result of this incident, the clinic voluntarily stopped operations on living donors for 4 months, which can be considered impacts to the schedule and customer service goals.  Once the impacts to the goals are determined, we can begin with an impact and ask “why” questions to add detail to the Cause Map.

The patient death was determined to be due to a combination of cardiac arrest and excessive bleeding.  The cardiac arrest occurred because the patient’s heart was too weak to withstand surgery, and the patient was undergoing surgery.  The patient was donating a portion of his liver as a “living donor”.  Because the patient was not properly informed prior to his surgery, it’s unclear whether he would have continued if proper processes had been followed.  Donors are required to be given outcomes from both the site performing the surgery and national results.  The information the donor received was not up-to-date, as the paperwork had not been updated.   Additionally, because the donor’s needs may be opposite of the recipient’s needs, the donor’s advocate is required to be involved only in the donor’s care.  In this case, the advocate was also involved in the recipient’s care. Lastly, the patient received an abnormal EKG (which indicated that he may have had a prior heart attack) during his operation prep.  Although later testing showed that there was no reduction in blood flow to the heart, it’s unclear whether the patient was aware of these results or in a cardiologist was consulted.  The patient did not request a second opinion to determine whether or not he was healthy enough to handle the surgery.

Excessive bleeding occurred during the surgery and was thought to also have contributed to the patient’s death.  Bleeding occurred because the patient was in surgery.  Because the type of surgery the patient was doing is relatively new, it’s also possible that the surgeon’s lack of familiarity with the surgery may have contributed to the bleeding.  The bleeding wasn’t able to be stopped because it was difficult to find the multiple sources.  The patient was having laparasopically assisted surgery, which results in a quicker recovery time for the patient but also means that the bleeding source needs to be found through small holes, rather than one large incision.  Although the surgeons say it was not related to the patient death, a high speed blood pump was not used, though it was available, and the procedure for massive bleeding was not followed.

Whether or not these issues contributed directly to the patient’s death, they should still be reviewed as sources of improvement for the facility.  Other facilities as well can use this incident to examiner their own procedures and look for opportunities to increase patient safety.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause Analysis

New Use for Old Drug May Save Lives

By ThinkReliability Staff

An off-label use for an existing drug, tranexamic acid, has been shown in recent studies to reduce bleeding – and so risk of death – from trauma.  The drug is believed to slow bleeding by slowing the dissolution of blood clots  by  blocking plasmin, which aids in the dissolution of blood clots.  A recent trial shows that 128,000 lives could be saved thanks to the use of tranexamic acid, an existing, cheap generic.  The drug slows bleeding in trauma patients and is being used on the battlefield, in Britain . . . and just about nowhere else.

How does the drug help trauma patients and why isn’t it being used? We can look at both of these issues in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.  We begin the Cause Map with the outline, which captures the basic information about the issue and the impacts to the goals.  Here, we are looking at the use of tranexamic acid to slow bleeding in trauma patients.  Currently, it’s being used primarily on battlefields and in trauma centers, mainly by Britain.  Use of the drug impacts the patient safety goal by potentially reducing the risk of death from trauma, and the patient services goal by slowing bleeding.

We begin with these impacted goals and ask “Why” questions to add detail to the Cause Map.  In this case, the potential for the reduced risk of death  results from having 400,000 people die of trauma in hospitals every year, and  the potential for slowed bleeding.    The potential for slowed bleeding is due to a drug that has been shown to slow bleeding, and the fact that that drug is not commonly used for trauma.  The drug is believed to slow bleeding by  blocking plasmin, which aids in the dissolution of blood clots.  The drug is not commonly used  for trauma, in part because it has not been FDA approved for this use.  (It can still be prescribed “off label” by doctors.)  The leader of the trial showing the potential benefits of the drug in trauma believes that the lack of use is due to inertia.  Because the drug is inexpensive, it doesn’t provide a large profit for drug companies, and so they are less likely to advertise the benefits.  Additionally, since the FDA hasn’t approved it for trauma, the drug companies aren’t allowed to advertise the drug for this use.

It’s unclear if manufacturers are attempting to  obtain FDA approval for trauma use.  However, publication of these studies, and sharing information between healthcare facilities may help increase the use of this drug, potentially saving lives.   It’s been added to the World Health Organization’s essential drugs, and is finding use on battlefields aiding wounded soldiers.  Hopefully in time, it will be used in healthcare facilities as well.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more

Root Cause Analysis

Technique Increases Availability of Donor Kidneys

By ThinkReliability Staff

Transplanted donor kidneys save lives, but availability does not meet demand.  Contributing to the problem is that some people who are willing to be donors have organs that are considered unsuitable for transplant.  A new procedure has been successful in making some of these previously rejected kidneys usable again.

The procedure involves flushing donated kidneys, which would previously have been rejected as unsuitable for transplant, with oxygenated blood (normothermic perfusion).  This can allow use of some damaged kidneys, such as those from the elderly or those with high blood pressure or diabetes.  It decreases the risk of a marginal organ being rejected.  It is believed that this could increase the availability of organs by about 500 a year in the United Kingdom, reducing the number of people on transplant waiting lists by about 10%.   (There are more than 6,400 kidney patients waiting for a transplant in the UK.)

So far, 17 organs that have been through the procedure have been successfully transplanted, between November 2010 and November 2011.  They are all functioning well.  The success of this procedure can be examined in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.   Positive impacts to the goals can be examined in the same way that negative impacts are – by identifying the impacts and asking “why” questions to identify the causes.  Due to this procedure, the patient safety goal has been impacted by reducing the risk of rejected transplanted organs.  The patient services and material goal has been impacted by increasing the availability of donor kidneys.  And, the “labor” goal has been impacted by reducing the amount of time people wait for donor kidneys.

Beginning with these impacts and asking “why” questions, we can identify that the procedure is allowing the use of previously marginal organs by allowing treatment outside the recipient body and  reducing the risk of rejection.  This increases the number of organs that can be used, and since there are still more organs needed than available, this reduces the amount of time on the waiting list.

Although this procedure should increase the number of organs available and reduce time on the waiting list, it still will not provide enough organs for everyone who needs one.  Donor outreach to increase donors and family understanding of the life-saving organ donation process is still needed.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.

Root Cause Analysis

Patient Brain Damaged Due to Malpractice and Surgeon Inexperience

By ThinkReliability Staff

When complications occur during surgery, an experienced surgeon and surgical team can help ensure a positive outcome for the patient.  Inexperience can lead to problems – in this case, brain damage.  A special concern in this case is that hospital documentation advertised that the surgeon was accredited when he did not meet the requirements.  They were convicted of fraud.

When a patient suffers brain damage, the patient safety goal is impacted.  Any time the patient safety goal is impacted, an investigation  should be performed.  In this case, we can look at the issue in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.

With the Cause Mapping approach, we begin with the impacts to the organization’s goals.  In addition to the brain damage, the patient also suffered from  loss of eyesight, another impact to the patient safety goal.   The  doctor was convicted of malpractice, which is an impact to the employee.   Additionally, the hospital was convicted of fraud, which can be considered an impact to the compliance goal.  The hospital was assigned $178 million in compensatory damage and $10 million in punitive damages.    Last but not least, the patient services goal was impacted due to the uncorrected leakage in the patient’s abdomen.

We can begin with the first patient safety goal and ask “why” questions to add more detail to the map.   In this case, the patient suffered brain damage as a result of a stroke.  The patient suffered a stroke because of uncorrected leakage in the abdomen.  The leakage occurred as a result of bariatric surgery, potentially due to the inexperience of the surgeon.  In addition,  the leakage was not treated for 8 days.  Again, it is believed that the inexperience of the surgeon contributed to insufficient patient care.

The fact that the leakage was untreated for 8 days was considered reason for malpractice.  While the patient was on a respirator due to his stroke, he was not treated with eye drops, resulting in a retinal burn that left him blind.  The hospital was convicted of fraud because it used documentation with the accreditation seal from the American Society Bariatric Surgery’s Center of Excellence referencing the surgeon who performed this surgery.  However, the surgeon did not meet the requirements for accreditation.  He had performed an insufficient number of surgeries and had not taken an adequate number of bariatric education courses to meet accreditation  requirements.  The use of the seal in hospital documentation was determined to be fraud.

This case reinforces the necessity for patients to be active in their own care in selecting their physicians.  Specifically, patients should perform  their own investigation of their surgeon’s qualifications.  However, in this case accurately determining those qualifications would have been difficult due to the associated fraud.  If the patient had asked how many surgeries the surgeon had performed, he may have decided to go elsewhere.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause Analysis

Patient Death over the Holidays

By ThinkReliability Staff

On December 31, 2010, a patient entered St. James’s Hospital in Leeds for a urinary tract infection.  Unfortunately for the patient, the hospital was experiencing nursing shortages due to the holiday and the patient died 3 days later.  The death of the patient is an impact to the patient safety goal.  We can look at this incident in more detail, based on the information available, in a root cause analysis presented in a visual Cause Map format.

Besides the impact to the patient safety goal, there was an employee impact due to the staffing shortage.  The patient’s son noted mistakes in the patient notes and charts (an impact to the compliance goal) and received a settlement from the National Health Service (NHS).  Last but certainly not least, the patient services goal was impacted due to the delay in appropriate treatment that the patient experienced.

To add more detail to the Cause Map, we can ask “why” questions.  The patient’s death was due to the combination of a urinary tract infection and the delay in appropriate treatment.  The urinary tract infection was caused by a catheter in place as the patient was bed-bound due to a previous stroke.   The delay in treatment was two-fold: first, the patient was not given another dose of antibiotics for 24 hours after the initial dose administered in the emergency room.  Second, the medication that was eventually given was not effective as the infection was resistant to that particular antibiotic.  The junior doctor who prescribed the medication failed to notice the antibiotic resistance and there was no over check of the prescription, likely due to the staffing shortage.

The patient was not monitored for 15 hours during the first 24 hours she was in the hospital.  Neither the nurses (again, likely due to the shortage) nor the consultant who performed morning rounds monitored her during this time.  This likely also led to mistakes in the patient’s notes and chart (which her son says number 140) and contributed to the patient’s death.  The NHS and hospital involved have developed an action plan to ensure that lessons are learned from this incident.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause Analysis

Study Finds Only 1 in 7 medical errors reported

By ThinkReliability Staff

A study by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that hospital employees are only reporting fourteen percent of all medical errors.  Additionally, the study determined that processes are rarely changed to help prevent similar errors in the future.

The study was conducted by reviewing the medical records of Medicare patients. As a condition of participating in the Medicare program, hospitals are required by federal regulations to track medical errors that harm patients and to implement solutions to protect patients from similar mistakes in the future.  All hospitals involved in the study had a method to collect information on medical errors, but all adverse events were not being efficiently captured by the systems in place.

The study found that out of 293 cases reviewed, only 40 were reported, 28 led to investigations and only five resulted in changes in the hospital’s processes.  Additionally, the inspector general estimated that more than 130,000 Medicare beneficiaries experience at least one adverse event in a hospital in one month so there is a plenty of room for improvement in patient care.

The study found a number of reasons that adverse events and medical errors were not being reported.  Confusion over requirements was one cause of the under reporting because hospital employees did not always recognize that a particular event harmed a patient and was required to be reported.  Also, there were cases where employees assumed someone else would report the incident or they considered the incident to be so common that it didn’t need to be reported.  There was also a tendency to not report things that were considered to be isolated events that were unlikely to recur.

To help combat these causes, the OIG report recommends the development of a standard list of medical errors that should be tracked and reported.  The OIG also recommends that guidance be developed and provided for the accreditors of hospitals since they do not typically investigate adverse event collection methods.  Additionally, some consumer groups are pushing for public reporting of medical errors to help pressure hospitals to improve their policies and practices.

Click on “Download PDF” above to view a high level Cause Map of this event which is an intuitive, visual root cause analysis of this issue.

Root Cause Analysis

Drug Used to Treat Diabetes May Increase Risk of Heart Disease

By ThinkReliability Staff

Since rosiglitazone was approved for use in controlling blood sugar in Type 2 diabetics who did not have success with front line treatments in 1999, studies have shown that this drug (included in trade name drugs Avandia, Avandamet and Avaglim) increases the risk of heart disease in users.  This is of particular concern because most Type 2 diabetics die from heart disease.  It is estimated that 60,000 to 200,000 people have suffered from heart disease due to these drugs.

A black box warning was placed on these drugs, but not until November 2007.  The European Medicines Agency recommended that the drug be suspended from European markets in 2010, and the drug was withdrawn from New Zealand markets in 2011.  What took so long?

We can attempt to add some clarity to this issue by viewing it in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.  To begin this analysis, we look at the impact to the goals from the point of view of the manufacturer.  The patient safety goal is impacted because of the increased occurrence of stroke, heart attack, and death. The compliance goal is  impacted because – according the Senate Finance Committee – trial results that would have indicated the increased risk for cardiovascular disease were not publicly released in a timely manner.  Reduced sales as a result of the risk are estimated to be more than $2 billion (an impact to the organizational goal) and lawsuits (an impact to the patient services goal) are projected to cost more than $1 billion.

Although the actual mechanism that is causing the increased risk of cardiovascular disease is unknown, the cause of the increased occurrence of heart attack, stroke and death is due to use of the drug rosiglitazone.  Although rosiglitazone has been found to be an effective second-line treatment for Type 2 diabetes, it is unlikely that doctors would have prescribed it as readily had they known about the increased risk of heart disease.  Instead, they were likely swayed by a multi-million dollar advertising campaign, while test results that showed increased cardiovascular risk were allegedly covered up.

Unfortunately, it’s not the first (or last) time this has happened.  In early 2012, the British Medical Journal raised concern about research misconduct – including cases where poor results from clinical trials are not released to the public.  In the US, it was found that less than half of studies – including those funded by the government – are publicly released in a timely manner.  Although there are regulations that require publication of studies, they aren’t always (or even usually) followed.  Some consideration of what can be done to ensure that these regulations are effective is ongoing.

Meanwhile, rosiglitazone has been removed from Europe and New Zealand markets.  In the US, new regulations went into effect making the drug extremely difficult to come by.  A different drug – Actos – is said to have similar effects on controlling blood sugar without the increased cardiovascular risk.  However, patients should consult with their doctors.

To view the Outline, Cause Map, Solutions and Timeline, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.