All posts by Angela Griffith

I lead comprehensive investigations by collecting and organizing all related information into a coherent record of the issue. Let me solve a problem for you!
Root Cause

How One Hospital Improved Heart Attack Care

By ThinkReliability Staff

The heart is responsible for pumping blood through the body, but it also requires blood flow to continue functioning. When the blood supply to the heart is cut off, it’s known as a heart attack and it can be deadly. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 15% of people who have a heart attack will die from it. Time is of the essence when treating heart attacks. Again according to the CDC, “The more time that passes without treatment to restore blood flow, the greater the damage to the heart.”

Treatment to restore blood flow is generally a balloon (which pushes aside the blockage) and a stent (which holds the artery open). In the United States, this is performed in a hospital. Although hospitals can’t control the amount of time it takes to get a heart attack victim TO the hospital, they can control the time from when a patient enters the hospital until treatment is begun. This is known as the door to balloon (or D2B) time.

A national campaign to improve the speed of heart attack treatment was launched. At that time, the typical heart attack process went like this: a patient suffered a heart attack and (hopefully) 911 was called. An ambulance picked up the patient and delivered them to a hospital. Once the patient arrived at the hospital, an electrocardiogram (EKG) was taken and transmitted to a cardiologist, who determined whether or not the patient was suffering from a heart attack. If it was a heart attack, an interventional cardiologist and other members of the heart attack team were called and made their way to the hospital. The patient was taken through a consent and surgical prep process, and then then balloon and stent were installed. At this time, the national goal was for half of patients to receive a stent and balloon within 90 minutes of arrival at a hospital.

One of the hospitals to take up the challenge was Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center in New Jersey. In 2007, heart attack treatment was on par or better than other hospitals, with half of patients treated within 93 minutes. (In many locations it took more than 2 hours.) By 2011, treatment time was down to 71 minutes. The head of the cardiovascular disease program challenged the staff to continue to decrease the time and staff members set up a “D2B task force”. This task force looked at each step in the process for potential improvements. Some individual steps were shortened. The forms required for consent were reduced as much as possible. The time spent individually calling in all the members of the cardiac care team was reduced by having a single call ring to all their pagers. Those on the team that were on call were limited to being 30 minutes away from the hospital.

Other steps, instead of being performed one after the other, were performed simultaneously. Instead of waiting for the patient to arrive at the hospital for an EKG, it is taken in the ambulance and transmitted to the emergency room. Each step required for surgical prep is performed as much as possible simultaneously by a team. Additionally, one surgical room is reserved for heart attack patients and is kept stocked with necessary supplies.

Now the median D2B time is 50 minutes. This was demonstrated on March 29, when a patient arrived at the medical center at 1:54 AM and whose D2B time was 55 minutes. This was unusually long for the center. What caused the difference? Because the patient was a 49-year-old woman with ambiguous symptoms, the emergency room doctor waited until the patient arrived at the hospital for another EKG to verify the heart attack before the heart attack team was called.

From 2003 to 2013 the death rate from coronary heart disease has fallen 38%. Some of this drop is attributed to better control of cholesterol and blood pressure, but some is surely due to quicker treatment at most US hospitals.

The “before” and “after” process map that shows the flow of heart attack treatment at Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center can be diagrammed visually to show how the process flows. To view the process map, the problem outline and timeline of the treatment of the heart attack patient on March 29, 2015, please click on “Download PDF” above. Or click here to read more.

Root Cause

Cuba Eliminates Transmission of HIV from Mother to Child

By ThinkReliability Staff

On June 30, 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV in Cuba eliminated. Clearly, this is fantastic news. Says Dr. Margaret Chen, WHO Director-General, “Eliminating transmission of a virus is one of the greatest public health achievements possible. This is a major victory in our long fight against HIV and sexually transmitted infections, and an important step towards having an AIDS-free generation.” The fight against HIV continues, with a global target of less than 40,000 new child infections per year by 2015.   (In 2013, there were 240,000 children born with HIV worldwide.) It’s hoped that the progress made in Cuba can be extended to the rest of the world.

How did Cuba do it? Root cause analysis can be used to determine causes of positive impacts as well as negatives. Here we will use a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis, to determine the causes that resulted in Cuba being declared free of MTCT of HIV. Instead of defining the “problem” in a problem outline, we will define the success using the same format. In this case, the elimination of transmission of HIV from mother to child is the success we’ll be looking at. This success impacts goals as well, though positively. The child safety goal is impacted because it is now very rare (only 2 in 2013) for children to receive HIV from their mothers. The maternal safety goal is impacted because mothers are receiving effective treatment for HIV. Other goals are impacted because of the decreased need for services for children who might otherwise have been infected with HIV.

Beginning with an impacted goal, we can ask Why questions. Why is it rare for children to receive HIV from their mothers? Because the risk of passing HIV from mother to child has been lessened. Why? Because when children are born to HIV-infected mothers, there is decreased exposure to infants from their mother’s bodily fluids, and both mothers and children are being treated effectively for HIV. Decreased exposure to bodily fluids has been accomplished by the use of Cesarean sections and substitution for breastfeeding. Effective HIV treatment results from awareness of the presence of HIV infection from testing performed by healthcare providers, seen as part of a five-year initiative that gave universal healthcare coverage and access. That same access allowed treatment for infected moms and their children with antiretrovirals.

Although this Cause Map is presented as a positive impact to the goals, it could also be presented as an analysis of the problem of HIV transmission from mother to child. The causes would be baby’s exposure to mom’s body fluids, and lack of effective treatment due to lack of knowledge of infection and/or lack of access. The solutions to that Cause Map are the causes presented here in the positive Cause Map. (For example, use of Cesarean sections and substitutions for breastfeeding are solutions to the cause of baby being exposed to mom’s body fluids.)

In order to receive validation from WHO of the elimination of MTCT of HIV, Cuba had to meet very specific indicators for a defined period of time. These indicators do not just measure the overall success of the program (impact indicators), but also measure the success of the initiatives meant to achieve those goals (process indicators). Impact indicators included reducing MTCT of HIV to less than 50 cases per 100,000 live births, less than 5% in breastfeeding populations, and less than 2% in non-breastfeeding populations for at least 1 year. Process indicators included more than 95% of all pregnant women receiving at least one antenatal visit, more than 95% of pregnant women knowing their HIV status, and more than 95% of HIV-positive pregnant women receiving antiretroviral drugs for at least 2 years.

With implementation of similar initiatives across the world, it is hoped that MTCT of HIV will continue to decrease rapidly.

To view the outline, Cause Map, and indicators, click on “Download PDF” above. Click here to read the release from the WHO.

Root Cause

Multiple Potential Causes for Avian Flu Outbreak

By ThinkReliability Staff

An outbreak of avian influenza (flu) H5N2 centered around Iowa in the United States has resulted in nearly 47 million birds being killed in 21 states. There is a low risk that this outbreak could spread to humans as the 1996 avian flu did. The impacts on the poultry industry have been significant: the number of birds being killed has led to an increase in poultry prices. Says Phil Lempert, “We’ve lost 10 to 13 percent of the laying hens in this country, so we’re going to have this period of time where we have less birds and less eggs. That means higher prices.”

The financial impact isn’t limited to consumers. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates it will spend more than $500 million fighting the outbreak. The impact on poultry producers is expected to be even higher. The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is studying the outbreak and attempting to put into place measures that will reduce the spread of the outbreak. Finding the causes leading to the outbreak has proven to be challenging.

We can capture the information that is known in cause-and-effect relationships using a Cause Map to better understand what caused this outbreak. The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to fill in an Outline with basic background information, which includes listing how the overall goals are impacted by the issue. The Cause Map is than built by asking “why” questions to lay out the cause-and-effect relationships. In this example, the animal safety goal is impacted due to the deaths of nearly 47 million birds. These birds were killed because of an outbreak of avian flu. An outbreak results from an initial infection (believed to have been transmitted in this case to domestic flocks by wild birds) and the spread of the disease. Based on genetic analyses from APHIS, this outbreak appears to have multiple independent introductions within the outbreak area (i.e. the transmission from wild birds to domestic flocks happened in multiple locations).

According to their Epidemiologic and Other Analysis of HPAI-Affected Poultry Flocks: June 15, 2015 Report: “APHIS concludes that at present, there is not substantial or significant enough evidence to point to a specific pathway or pathways for the current spread of the virus. We have collected data on the characteristics and biosecurity measures of infected farms and studied wind and airborne viruses as possible causes of viral spread, and conducted a genetic analysis of the viruses detected in the United States.” This means that the cause or causes of the spread of the avian flu cannot be definitively determined due to lack of evidence. When an investigation has a lack of evidence, potential causes are included in the analysis with a question mark, indicating insufficient evidence.

In this case, avian flu was potentially spread by air, by wild birds, and by human movement. Data from APHIS research indicates that the virus has been able to spread on windy days up to a half mile. A solution under consideration is more advanced ventilation systems for poultry farms that would prevent transmission of disease from farm to farm. Previous outbreaks have indicated that wild birds can not only cause an initial infection, but can continue to spread the disease from flock to flock. This evidence supports this cause, but is not strong enough to rule out other causes so all should still be included on the Cause Map. Lastly, APHIS found inadequate biosecurity (primarily cleaning and disinfecting) measures on equipment and personnel that traveled from farm to farm, which could also potentially spread the disease.

The issues found with biosecurity are a particular concern. Says Michael T. Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, “We used to think we had outstanding biosecurity in poultry. But, except for the outbreak in 1983, which was stopped quickly, we have never been tested before.”

Osterholm and other researchers say more research is needed to screen for viruses, and develop drugs and vaccines to ensure public safety. Although the virus has not yet been shown to infect humans, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has developed interim guidelines on testing and treatment. APHIS continues research on how to limit the spread and the USDA, in order to offer some relief on prices, has recently allowed poultry imports from the Netherlands.

To view a Cause Map, or root cause analysis presented in a visual cause-and-effect diagram, of the ongoing outbreak, please click “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause

Care Home Residents Unable to Escape Fire

By ThinkReliability Staff

A tragic fire at a care home for residents dependent on caregivers occurred in Pingdingshan, China on the night of May 25, 2015. Of the 51 residents housed at the 130-bed care home, 38 were killed and 6 injured.

It is tempting to declare the fire as the “root cause” of the tragedy. However, doing so limits the analysis (and thus potential solutions) to only prevention of fires. While many potential improvements in fire prevention at this and other structures with high-risk occupants can be identified, it’s also important to identify solutions that increase the probability of occupants being able to successfully escape a fire.

To ensure that the investigation develops the broadest possible range of solutions, begin with the impact to the goals. In this case, the primary goal impacted was that of resident safety – 38 residents died and 6 were injured. Most residents were unable to escape, impacting the resident services goal. The care home was completely destroyed, impacting the property goal, and it was found to not meet standards, impacting the compliance goal.

Once we’ve determined the impact to the goals, we can develop a Cause Map, or a visual diagram of cause-and-effect relationships that led to the impacted goals. Beginning with one of the impacted goals (in this case the deaths and injuries), and asking “Why” questions develops the cause-and-effect relationships. In this case, the deaths were due to the severe fire at the care home. But that isn’t the only cause. After all, the fire occurred in a facility where 51 residents were (presumably) sleeping, and there were a few residents who were able to escape with their lives.

This means that the cause-and-effect relationship of “fire kills resident” is accurate, but not complete. The effect of the deaths resulted not only from the fire, but from the residents being unable to escape. This gives us two different lines of questioning and possible solutions.

A severe fire results from a fire being initiated and spreading. Heat, fuel and oxygen are required in order to initiate a fire. Oxygen is present in the atmosphere. As in most fires due to destruction of evidence, the heat (or ignition) source has not been identified, but the national work safety agency investigation did find “irregularities” in the electrical system, which could be a potential source. While the initial fuel source is not clear, the care home was constructed with highly flammable materials, which allowed the spread of the fire.

The residents in the care home were dependent on caregivers and so were generally unable to escape without help. Unfortunately help was in short supply. Although residents complained of a shortage of caregivers, it’s not clear how many caregivers were on duty at the time of the fire. Shortage of caregivers is a huge problem in China due to the large percentage of the population that is older, which resulted from the one child policy of previous generations. It’s estimated there are 200,000 caregivers for the elderly in China, and 10 million are needed. In addition, the national work safety agency investigation found that the escape routes in the care home were poorly designed, making it difficult for anyone to escape.

After the tragedy, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang called on others to “draw lessons from the accident, checking all potential safety hazards to avoid similar incidents.” To avoid deaths from fire, that involves not only reducing the risk of fire, but making sure all people, regardless of ability, are able to escape.

To view the analysis of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above. To read about an arson at a care home in Australia that killed 11 and spurred a law requiring installation of automatic sprinkler systems, click here.

 

Root Cause

Identifying and Preventing Causes of Lab Errors

By ThinkReliability Staff

A man was mistakenly told he had HIV. A baby who died from a blood disorder that could have been treated during pregnancy, but wasn’t because the routine blood screen came back clear. A little girl who had to receive a second transplant after the test to verify her acceptance of a new organ was run incorrectly. These are just some of the cases mentioned in a watchdog report about how laboratory errors and weak oversight put patients at risk.

There are 7 to 10 billion medical laboratory tests run in the US every year. Lab tests influence about 70% of medical decisions. Having the wrong information from these tests can be deadly, and there is no good data about how many lab tests may be inaccurate, or may be negitively impacting patient safety. Laboratories are generally overseen by accrediting organizations but the results are almost always private, and there have been recent cases where federal regulators have had to step in because serious deficiencies in lab processes were identified.

The risk isn’t just for patients. An employee was infected with HIV and hepatitis C after a machine malfunctioned, splashing contaminated blood product onto her face. The employee had warned her boss previously that the machine was broken and cross-contaminating samples. Patients can also receive wrong information that isn’t harmful to their physical health but causes all sorts of other problems, such as incorrectly run paternity tests that improperly rule out a man as the father of a child.

The process involved in laboratory testing – from taking a specimen from a patient to delivering the results – is complex, and there are potential issues at each step that can lead to inaccurate results. These causes can be visually diagrammed in a Cause Map, or a visual cause-and-effect diagram. (To view the Cause Map, click “Download PDF” above.) In this case, potential causes of lab errors are captured and analyzed for potential solutions. These causes include labeling of samples, time and storage conditions of the samples, use of proper (and non-expired) products to treat the samples, and calibration of the machines used for the testing.

Actions that reduce the risk of inaccurate lab results should be in place at all labs, but even with a well-planned process, mistakes can happen. That makes the addition of checks and oversight into the process incredibly important. Says Michael Baird, the chief science officer and laboratory director at DNA Diagnostics Center, “I will agree that mistakes are something that can happen whatever you do. You just need to have the appropriate controls in place for when a mistake happens, (so) you can catch it before it goes out the door.”

For example, at the lab Baird runs, samples used for DNA checks are run independently by two different technicians and when a man is ruled out as the father of a child, there is a double-check in place. Other labs have incorporated alert systems for time-sensitive specimens and have hired technical directors responsible for overseeing the labs.

There are also steps patients themselves can take to minimize the impact on their safety from potential lab testing errors. First, ensure that any samples taken are labeled immediately and with accurate information. If you’re at all unsure about a test result, get a second opinion at a different lab. Complaints about a lab should be directed to state health officials.

To view the Cause Map addressing potential causes of laboratory errors, click “Download PDF”. To learn more, read the watchdog report.

Root Cause

Measles Vaccine Provides Multiple Protections

By ThinkReliability Staff

For previously unknown reasons, children who received the measles vaccine were less likely to die from infectious diseases other than measles.   According to Michael Mina, a postdoc in biology at Princeton University and a medical student at Emory University, the difference is significant.  “In some developing countries, where infectious diseases are very high, the reduction in mortality has been up to 80 percent.  So it’s really been a mystery – why do children stop dying at such high rates from all these different infections following introduction of the measles vaccine?”

Based on epidemiological data from countries before and after the measles vaccine was introduced, scientists believe they may have an explanation for this mystery that is part correlation and part causation.  So what’s the difference (and why do we care)?

Correlation means that two or more events tend to occur about the same time and might be associated with each other, but aren’t necessarily connected by a cause-and-effect relationship.  Causation means that a specific action causes a second event to happen.  A cause-and-effect relationship results from causation.   Sometimes it’s very difficult to distinguish between the two.  This is where the importance of evidence comes in.

In this case, part of the decrease in death due to infectious diseases can be considered due to correlation.  In this case, children who received the measles vaccine must have had access to healthcare, including the measles vaccine.  If they received the measles vaccine, they were also likely to receive other vaccines and treatment for other infectious diseases, meaning their death rates from other diseases were also lower.  The measles vaccine did not cause the reduction in deaths from infectious diseases, the access to healthcare did.  Getting the measles vaccine also resulted from the same cause, access to healthcare.

In addition to this correlation, epidemiological data from several countries from prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine shows that the number of measles cases predicted the number of deaths from other infectious diseases two to three years later.  Their hypothesis, supported by studies in monkeys, suggest that the measles virus actually erases immune protection to other diseases.  So, if a child gets measles, he or she loses some of the immune system’s “memory” of how to fight diseases can also be wiped out.  Preventing a child from getting the measles (by getting a measles vaccine) is believed to prevent deaths from other infectious diseases as well.

Although more testing is needed to verify the causation, scientists hope it will provide more evidence for parents to vaccinate their children.  Epidemiologist William Moss, who studies the vaccine at John Hopkins University, says “The reduction in overall child mortality that follows measles vaccination is much greater than previously believed.  I think this paper will provide additional evidence – if it’s needed – of the public health benefits of measles vaccine.  That’s an important message in the U.S. right now and in countries continuing to see measles outbreaks.”

To view the cause-and-effect relationships (both correlation and causation) between the measles vaccine and decreased mortality from childhood infectious diseases, please click on “Download PDF” above.  To learn more about the epidemiological study, click here.

Root Cause

Confusion over Electronic Health Record Entry Leads to Death

By ThinkReliability Staff

A woman seen at an Illinois emergency room for a puncture wound from a gardening tool died of tetanus. Tetanus has a high fatality rate and there is no cure once it is developed, but the tetanus vaccine provides high levels of protection, even when given after a wound is sustained.   (Tetanus generally takes several days to incubate after a puncture wound that delivers the C. tetani spore, caused by an object that may have been exposed to feces, such as any object outdoors.)

Upon receipt of a threatening puncture wound, it is recommended that a patient be given a tetanus booster if it has been more than five years since an immunization has been given. It is unclear when the woman had last had a tetanus booster, but if status is unknown, giving a booster is also recommended. Despite coming to the emergency room for a puncture wound that was threatening with an unknown immunization status, the woman did not receive a tetanus shot. We can look into the details of the case in a Cause Map, or root cause analysis. This format diagrams the cause-and-effect relationships that led to an issue – in this case, the death of a patient from tetanus despite seeking treatment from a hospital.

In this case, the woman died of tetanus because she was infected with tetanus by being stabbed with a garden fork (for reasons which are unclear), and because she was not effectively immunized against tetanus. The patient was ineffectively immunized because she did not receive the recommended tetanus immunization.

During the patient’s intake by a nurse, the immunization status in the patient’s electronic health record (EHR) was selected as “unknown/ past 5 years”. The physician treating the woman did not request any clarification, but apparently considered that her shots were up-to-date and did not order a booster. This clearly indicates a poor design in the EHR as an “unknown” status would indicate the need for a booster, and having a shot within the “past 5 years” would not.

This confusion illustrates the issues being seen during the increased use of electronic health records. In their report Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care by the Institute of Medicine, they state, “designed and applied inappropriately, health IT can add an additional layer of complexity to the already complex delivery of health care, which can lead to unintended adverse consequences.” A review by a medical malpractice insurer showed that EHR issues were involved in only 1% of lawsuits concluded from 2007 to 2013 but that percentage had doubled from 2013 to early 2014, and more are expected with the increased adoption of EHRs. This is disappointing news for an incentive program for the use of EHRs, which hoped they would make hospitals safer. Data on whether or not that has occurred is mixed.

Because of their concerns, the Institute of Medicine has recommended the creation of an information technology (IT) safety center to investigate EHR risks. So far the proposal has not been funded by Congress. Others think that a government-supported fund to compensate victims, similar to that used for vaccine injuries, may be necessary.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology has released a guide on identifying and addressing unsafe conditions associated with health IT (available by clicking here). It calls for providers, EHR developers and policymakers to ensure health IT is used to improve patient care and protect patient safety.

To view the Cause Map of the tetanus death, please click on “Download PDF” above. To learn more about identifying and addressing unsafe conditions associated with health IT, click here.

 

Root Cause

Listeria in Ice Cream Causes 3 Deaths

By ThinkReliability Staff

On April 20, 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced a recall of all Blue Bell Creameries products due to possible contamination by Listeria monocytogenes.  While the company has not yet determined the source of the outbreak, they are working with outside agencies to determine potential causes and implementing solutions to reduce the risk of food-borne illness in the future.  Says Paul Kruse, the CEO and president, “We’re committed to doing the 100 percent right thing, and the best way to do that is to take all of our products off the market until we can be confident that they are all safe.  At this point, we cannot say with certainty how Listeria was introduced to our facilities and so we have taken this unprecedented step.  We continue to work with our team of experts to eliminate this problem.”

Performing a root cause analysis can help clarify the goals of an investigation, determine the causes of the problem(s) related to an issue, and provide ideas for action items to reduce the risk of the issue recurring.  We can gather the information known so far about the outbreak in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis.

The Cause Mapping process begins by capturing the what, when and where of an incident.  Here, the “what” is the Listeria outbreak.  The “when” in this case is believed to have started in 2010 and continued to the present.  It can be helpful to capture any noted differences about the particular investigation.  For example, most outbreaks don’t last 5 years.  The use of genome sequencing (starting in 2013) allowed investigators to tie Listeria cases from 2010 on to this particular outbreak.  An additional difference is that Listeria can replicate in very cold temperatures.  This is unusual because freezing foods generally reduces the risk of propagating food-borne contamination.  The “where” is across the US – all products have been recalled and all plants have been shutdown, with several having been implicated in spreading Listeria.  Another useful piece of information can be the task being performed.  In this case, the contamination was discovered during random sampling.

The next step is identifying the impacts to the goals.  For this incident, the safety goal was impacted due to the sicknesses and deaths.  The outbreak of Listeria can be considered an impact to both the environmental and customer service goal, while the loss of production (no Blue Bell products are currently available or being produced for consumers) is an impact to the production goal.  The disposal of the estimated 8 million gallons of ice cream covered by the recall impacts the product goal, and the response and investigation impacts the labor goal.

The analysis step begins with an impacted goal.  Asking “why” questions develops the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the impacts.  In this case, the sicknesses and deaths were caused by a Listeria outbreak.  In order to have a food-borne illness outbreak, the food needs to be contaminated AND it needs to be delivered to consumers.  In this case, the contamination was not known because ice cream is not tested for Listeria.  There is no history of Listeria outbreaks in ice cream and testing is difficult on perishable products because of the time required.  Once ice cream products are again manufactured for consumers, Blue Bell has said it will implement a test and hold process (holding product until testing comes back negative).

The Listeria contamination results from the introduction of Listeria into the ice cream.  As discussed before, Listeria can replicate in cold temperatures.  The contamination source is likely surfaces in the production facilities or cross-contamination from other food products.  Because multiple plants are contaminated and cleanliness issues have been a concern in the past, it is likely that the outbreak is due to contamination of surfaces, on which Listeria can remain for a long time if not properly sanitized.

In addition to the test and hold process, Blue Bell is in the process of implementing a number of other changes to reduce the risk of future contamination.  Employees are being trained in microbiology and an expanded cleaning and sanitation program.  Prior to production resuming, equipment is being disassembled, cleaned, and tested for contamination and design changes that would make cleaning easier (reducing the risk of future contamination) are being considered.

While it is sometimes difficult to determine the success of solutions, the test and hold process to be used for future ice cream products should provide almost real-time feedback on the success of the programs and ensure that future problems are quickly identified.

To view a one-page PDF of the analysis and solutions, please click on “Download PDF” above.  To learn more about the ice cream Listeria outbreak, click here.  To read our previous blog about the 2011 fatal Listeria outbreak in cantaloupe, click here.

Root Cause

With $16.3B, Why Are Veterans Still Waiting for Care?

By ThinkReliability Staff

Concerns regarding the timeliness of treatment within the Veterans Administration (VA)’s network of hospitals and clinics have been around nearly as long as the VA itself. In 1995, a goal was set to have veterans seen for appointments within 30 days. VA doctors’ and executives’ bonuses are based at least in part on meeting timeliness targets. Many believe this is a key reason that waiting lists were doctored (by being kept on a separate “secret” waiting list, before being moved onto the real, computerized waiting list within 14 days of their scheduled appointment). The scandal, which is believed to have contributed to the deaths of dozens of veterans while they waited for appointments, led to much consternation and a call for significant reform to improve the waiting time of veterans.

It was found that veterans were waiting too long for appointments not only in Phoenix (where the “secret waiting list” scandal was discovered) but at many VA sites around the country. This was determined to have significant (though not always easily quantifiable) impact on patient safety as well as patient services to the large numbers of veterans who were unable to get timely appointments. (Read our previous blog about a veteran who lost much of his nose after waiting more than 2 years for a biopsy.)

In order to lessen the waiting times, $16.3 billion in spending to hire more doctors, open more clinics, and create a program that allows veterans to seek private-sector care was approved July 31, 2014. However, a study by the Associated Press has found that from August 1, 2014 to February 28, 2015, over 890,000 appointments failed to meet the timeliness goal. More than 230,000 appointments were delayed more than 60 days. While the number of vets waiting more than 30 and more than 60 days has stayed about flat, the number of appointments that take more than 90 days has nearly doubled. Some specific problem areas have been identified.

Challenges remain with the “Choice Program”: The Choice Program began to cover non-VA care for eligible veterans November 5, 2014. However, eligibility remains limited to those who have to wait more than 30 days from their “preferred date” or a date medically determined by their doctor or those who are more than 40 miles (straight line) from the nearest VA facility or face an unusual travel burden to access it.   Only some private physicians participate. The program is being expanded so that the 40 miles is based on driving distance rather than a straight line calculation, and telephone lines and other programs are being implemented to assist veterans using the program to seek care.

Medically underserved areas have the worst delays: During the government’s investigation, it was found that many VA facilities have inadequate providers for the number of veterans in their care. These areas tend to be areas that are medically underserved, which compounds the problem because civilian options in the area are also limited, limiting the effectiveness of the program that allows veterans to seek private-sector care. Says Dr. Kevin Dellsperger, chief medical officer at Georgia Regents Medical Center and former chief of staff at the VA medical center in Iowa City, Iowa, “Not a lot of medical students want to go work for the VA in a rural community medical clinic.” While 8,000 employees were added to the VA between April and December 2014, it’s hoped that increasing salaries in the underserved areas will attract more providers.

Physical space is also an issue: Any government contracting and building process can be cumbersome, and the VA has been identified as having particular difficulty managing the contracting process. When buildings are (finally) constructed, they’re usually already too small.

Enrollment is increasing: Enrollment in VA programs has been expanding rapidly. From 2002 to 2013, enrollment increased from 6.8 million to 8.9 million and spending increased from $19.9B to $44.8B.   Says Robert McDonald, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, “Today, we serve a population that is older, with more chronic conditions, and less able to afford private sector care.” It’s hoped that the increased enrollment is actually a positive, buoyed by the efforts made to increase access and shorten waiting times. “I think what we are seeing is that as we improve access, more veterans are coming, ” says Sloan Gibson, the Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

It may get worse: “The cost of fulfilling those obligations to our veterans grows and we expect it will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. We know that services and benefits for veterans do not peak until roughly four decades after conflict ends . . . we project the benefits for recent veterans in recent conflicts will peak around 2055,” testified VA Secretary McDonald.

The VA administration is asking for patience. Deputy Secretary Gibson says “We are doing a whole series of things – the right things, I believe – to deal with the immediate issue. But we need an intermediate term plan that moves us ahead a quantum leap, so that we don’t continue over the next three or four years just trying to stay up. We’ve got to get ahead of demand.”

To view an overview of these issues in a visual cause-and-effect diagram (or Cause Map), as well as some of the associated solutions, click on “Download PDF” above. To read more about the AP’s analysis, click here.

Root Cause

Prisoner escapes from hospital

By ThinkReliability Staff

A recent prisoner escape from city custody in Virginia was only one of four attempted escapes in the US over 8 days related to seeking medical care.  Examining the cause-and-effect relationships shows what led to the prisoner escape and can provide insight into improvements to reduce the risk of it happening again.  These cause-and-effect relationships can be diagrammed visually in a root cause analysis, or Cause Map.

The analysis begins by capturing the what, when and where of the problem.  In this case, the issue being analyzed is the escape of a prisoner from a public hospital in Alexandria, Virginia March 31, 2015 at about 3:00 a.m.  Along with the where, we capture what was happening at the time.  In this case, the patient was receiving medical care after a suicide attempt.  It’s also helpful to capture any differences.  Differences could be in the location, date, time or task being performed.  In this case, a few things stand out from a summary reading of the media reports available.  First, the city jail prisoner was being treated at a public hospital, and second, one of the guards responsible for the prisoner was taking a bathroom break.

These differences may or may not be causally related to the issue, but provide potential causes to consider. As mentioned, there were four prisoner escapes during a week related to medical care.  On the same day, a New Orleans prisoner escaped from a van transporting prisoners to a hospital.  The previous day, a New Jersey prisoner escaped from a hospital, and a week prior, a West Virginia psychiatric hospital patient facing murder charges escaped.

As physical and procedural security at prisons improve, fewer prisoners are escaping from the facilities themselves.  Many times, being removed for medical care is the best opportunity.  Federal prisons, which provide on-site medical care, have far fewer escapes than other facilities.  From 1999 to 2001, only one of 115,000 federal prisoners escaped.

A single trip for medical treatment itself may not be to blame for the escape attempts, but repeat trips to the same medical facility may increase the risk.  Says Kevin Tamez, inmate advocacy consultant, “Very rarely do these guys go to the hospital for treatment and all of a sudden they decide they’re going to escape.  What happens is, traditionally, inmates go to the hospital for treatment . . . they come back to the facility and they start telling other inmates . . . There is nobody more ingenious than an inmate.  They have nothing to do all day but sit around and think things up. There are ways of minimizing it, but there’s never a way to prevent it.”

Having only one guard instead of two, due to a bathroom break, is problematic for obvious reasons.  It’s far more difficult to overwhelm two guards than one.  “From a safety perspective it’s always good to have two people there,” says Gary Klugiewicz, a consultant/ trainer for law enforcement & correctional officers.  The amount of time the guards were watching this prisoner at the hospital (4 days, for reasons that are unclear) may have also played an impact.  It’s hard to keep your guard up for that amount of time.

The U.S. Marshals, who had responsibility for the prisoner at the time, will be reviewing their procedures to look for opportunities for improvement.  Experts suggest that enlisting hospital security to fill in, rather than leaving just one guard in place, may help.  Because the secure healthcare facilities in federal jails allow so many fewer escapes, using these instead of public hospitals may reduce the risk of escape.  However, there’s still the problem of transporting inmates, which is another high escape potential.

To view the Cause Map of the prisoner’s escape, click on “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to learn more.