Tag Archives: healthcare

Root Cause

Disabled resident dies when caregiver falls asleep

By ThinkReliability Staff

A physically disabled resident in a New York state-run care home required checks every two hours to ensure he was receiving adequate oxygen.  On the night of September 10, 2013, his nurse fell asleep, and he went more than 8 hours without the checks.  During this time, his oxygen level dropped to 40% (anything below 90% is considered dangerous), and he later died of hypoxic brain injury.

Says Patricia Gunning, prosecutor for the New York State (NYS) Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs, “This case serves as a tragic reminder of the serious risk posed by an all too common workforce problem of caregiver fatigue or workers sleeping on shifts.”

Sadly, “all too common” turned out to be all too true.  The NYS Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs was formed in mid-2013, and oversees agencies responsible for more than a million people in state care or state-funded nonprofits.  During its first year, it found 458 reports alleging abuse or neglect that cited a caregiver sleeping on the job.  This included caregivers who slept through a resident’s grand-mal seizure and a resident’s elopement, residents with unattended access to medications and food, and residents who were in a car driven by a caregiver who fell asleep at the wheel.

Even with a seemingly overwhelming problem such as this, progress can be made by looking at the specifics of one case, identifying causes that led to the problem, and developing solutions.  These solutions can then be considered for individual or widespread application.  We will examine the specifics of this case in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis, which lays out the cause-and-effect relationships leading to a problem.

The problem being examined is determined by the impact to an organization’s goals.  In this case, the resident safety goal was impacted because of the death of the resident.  The resident services goal was impacted because the resident did not receive adequate oxygen.  The compliance goal is impacted because of the felony charges against the nurse, who was sentenced to 90 days in prison.

Beginning with the most prominent impacted goal – in this case the resident safety goal – and asking “why” questions develop the cause-and-effect relationships that led to that impact.  In this case, the resident died from hypoxic brain injury (per diagnosis), from a lack of oxygen.  Due to the resident’s physical disability, his oxygen delivery equipment was required to be checked every 2 hours around the clock.  On the night of September 10 to September 11, more than 8 hours passed between checks, at which point the patient was found unresponsive.  (He died two weeks later.)

The resident’s oxygen delivery was not checked for more than 8 hours (as opposed to the required two) because the caregiver on duty had fallen asleep.  Testimony from the nurse in question as well as others from the facility describing sleeping on overnight shifts as a common occurrence.  Later research from the NYS Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs found that many incidents involving caregiver sleeping on duty involved staff working extended or otherwise non-traditional work shifts.  The nurse who fell asleep on duty worked 12-hour night shifts at a site where many signed up for overtime and just barely passed duty hour requirements.

In response to the numerous caregiver sleeping events it discovered, the NYS Justice Center for the Protection of People with Special Needs has provided a toolkit aimed to protect people with special needs from caregiver fatigue.  The Center recommends that care provider agencies implement & regularly review policies meant to deter and detect sleeping on the job, establish contingency plans to relieve staff found unfit for duty, and provide assistance to residents in calling for help if caregiver is unresponsive.  Due to the myriad issues associated with caregiver fatigue, the American Nurses Association (ANA) continues to fight to reduce nurse fatigue, and possible harm to patients.

To see a one-page PDF with an overview of the investigation related to the resident lack of oxygen due to caregiver sleeping, click on “Download PDF” above.  Or, click here to learn more.

Root Cause

Hospital reduces neonatal fatalities by 50%

By Kim Smiley

Infant mortality rate is often used as an indication of a nation’s health and social condition.  When reviewing the data for different countries, it becomes obvious that for a wealthy, developed country, the United States has a high infant mortality rate. According to the CIA World Factbook, the US infant mortality rate is 6.2 deaths per 1,000 births, which is nearly twice that of France, Italy and Spain. Additionally, the US ranked 60 for maternal deaths in a study for the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.

The good news is that healthcare providers are working to improve care and help reduce preventable injuries and deaths during childbirth.  Obviously, access to prenatal care, overall health of the mother and other factors play a role in birth outcomes, but some relatively simple solutions targeting labor and delivery care have proven to dramatically increase birth outcomes.  A new report “Solutions in Sight” by the nonprofit Public Citizen lists some of the successes in improving birth outcomes.

One particularly impressive case is that of Ascensions Health, which reduced its neonatal fatality rate by 50% across its 43 hospitals by implementing relatively cheap, common-sense solutions.  Ascension did a number of things to help improve birth outcomes such as improving training and communications.  Drills were done to practice how staff should respond in a variety of emergency situations to help medical personnel identify and quickly respond to potentially dangerous scenarios.  There was also focus on communication between personnel to help ensure there were no misunderstandings in high pressure situations and to encourage all staff members to speak up if they perceived a dangerous situation.

Additionally, they worked to develop “bundles” of services, which are packages of procedures that have been shown to produce the best results.  Bundles are essentially guidelines for how staff should respond in a variety of situations.  There was also an emphasis on reducing C-section deliveries that weren’t medically necessary because these types of births are associated with a higher rate of complications. None of these solutions were earth-shattering, but they have proven effective when consistently implemented.

In additional to the clear benefit of saving lives and reducing the number of potentially life-long injuries, improving birth outcomes has economic benefits.  Better birth outcomes reduce the likelihood of expensive lawsuits. This example is a classic win-win where doing the right thing actually saves money in the long run as well.

Many of us do not spend our days delivering babies, but this example has many lessons that can be applied across industries.  Learning how to provide effective, realistic training can dramatically improve performance.  Empowering employees at all levels to speak up when something doesn’t look right can save lives, whether it’s in a factory or a hospital.  Formally documenting and using best practices so employees can benefit from others’ experience can streamline many processes and reduce preventable errors.  Sometimes the simple solutions really are the most effective.

Typically, a Cause Map is built when something has gone wrong, but it can also be used as a proactive tool to help understand why something has gone right.  To view a high level Cause Map of this example, click on “Download PDF” above.  Another example of a proactive, positive Cause Map is the Miracle on the Hudson, where all passengers survived a plane landing on a river.

Root Cause

Explosion, Deaths at Maternity Hospital Follow Gas Leak

By ThinkReliability Staff

A gas tanker was providing fuel to a maternity hospital in Mexico City when the gas workers discovered a leak. They contacted the fire department, had the hospital evacuated, and attempted to put out the leak. Unfortunately, the leaked gas exploded, killing at least 2 nurses and 2 babies, and leveling most of the hospital.

Dozens more infants, patients and nursing staff were injured, along with the three gas workers present at the scene. The gas workers have all been arrested, though the charges against them have not been released. While it appears that the workers are being held responsible for the tragedy, providing an objective, factual analysis as to what happened can provide useful information to reduce the risk of the issue happening again.

When performing a root cause analysis of an issue (as we will do here in a Cause Map), it’s important to first capture the impacts to the organizational goals as a result of the incident being investigated. In this case, the patient safety goal is impacted because of the deaths of two infants and the injuries to dozens of patients. The safety of hospital employees was impacted due to the deaths of two nurses and injuries to many more. Additionally, the safety of the gas company employees was impacted because all three of the gas workers were injured.

The environment was impacted due to the gas leak. The compliance goal was impacted because the three workers were arrested. The patient services and operations goals were impacted by the evacuation from the hospital (which is very difficult on patients and staff, although it likely saved many lives in this case). The property goal is impacted because of the severe damage to the hospital and the labor goal is impacted by the rescue efforts. (Hospital neighbors are reported to have provided considerable assistance to the rescue efforts at no small risk to themselves.)

Any time deaths or injuries result from an explosion, it is important not only to determine what caused the explosion, but whether the response could have been improved. In this case, the explosion occurred while the hospital was being evacuated, though a specific timeline of the leak, evacuation and explosion has not been released. Further analysis into the evacuation will help determine whether improvements could have saved lives.

In the case of the explosion, the fuel was provided by the leaked gas. Adequate oxygen was present in the air, and the ignition source (heat) could have been provided by hospital operations (the gas was being delivered near the hospital kitchen) or potentially by work being done to repair the leak (such as static or a spark). The gas leaked due to a faulty gas delivery hose. When a faulty part contributes to a tragedy such as this one, it’s important to determine not only how the damage occurred (if possible), but whether inspections or maintenance could have reduced the risk of an incident. Clearly if the hose had been discovered to be faulty and replaced before the delivery took place, the risk of an explosion would have been greatly decreased.

A broader issue for the entire country is the question of why gas leaks and explosions are fairly common. Part of this is because there is no infrastructure to pipe gas underground and it instead has to be delivered by truck. A similar incident involving a hose issue on a gas truck killed three in Queretaro in July last year. The company that provided the gas to the hospital in this case says that it has 1,000 trucks that deliver gas to over 80% of the country. With such a large distribution network, accidents are bound to happen. However, clearly more effort needs to go into making sure that the impact on human lives is reduced.

Root Cause

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is Strangling Nation’s Health

By ThinkReliability Staff

The facts about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) aren’t pretty.  COPD is not one but a group of diseases that impact airflow and breathing.  Included in the group are emphysema and chronic bronchitis.  (These diseases are grouped together because they are commonly diagnosed together.) COPD is the third leading cause of death.  In 2010, it was the cause of death of 135,000 Americans.  Every year, COPD results in millions of visits to the doctor’s office or emergency room and hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations, which last an average of almost five days.

All that medical care doesn’t come cheap.  COPD is the fifth most expensive disease in the US, with $32.1 billion in direct medical costs.  (In addition, billions of dollars are attributed to absenteeism and mortality costs as a result of COPD.)  An additional concern is that many COPD sufferers are rehospitalized soon after release.  COPD is the third most common cause of 30-day rehospitalization.  Under the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), penalties or loss of benefits are applied to hospitals with greater than average rehospitalization.  The penalty for readmission of COPD patients beyond average is $33,000.  Of US hospitals, 44.5% received readmissions penalty in 2013.

Because there is no cure for COPD, limiting rehospitalizations primarily involves ensuring appropriate treatment to limit symptoms, and exacerbations, which account for 50-75% of medical costs.  However, there are actions that can slow the progression of COPD.  By diagramming the cause-and-effect relationships resulting in progression of COPD in a Cause Map, we can visually show how solutions act on these causes.  As discussed above, impacts to goals associated with COPD include patient safety (deaths), environmental (exposure to air pollutants), compliance (potential for penalties/ loss of benefits), patient services (high levels of rehospitalization), operations (absenteeism) and property/labor (direct medical costs).  These impacts are primarily caused by exacerbation of COPD.

Exacerbation of COPD results from the progression of the disease and delayed treatment.  COPD develops due to exposure to air pollutants (primarily tobacco smoke or industrial chemicals), genetic factors (which are just beginning to be understood), and respiratory infections or untreated asthma.  Because there is no cure for COPD, time without treatment is the primary way that symptoms increase.  (82% of COPD sufferers are over age 65.)  Inadequate treatment typically results from the underdiagnosis of COPD (experts predict 10-12 million sufferers have not yet been diagnosed) and insufficient adherence to a medication regime.  Based on self-reported values and pharmacy claims, adherence to prescribed medication regime is 32-50%, meaning less than half of COPD sufferers are following doctor’s orders with regards to their COPD, even though studies have also found that optimized medications can reduce exacerbations of COPD by 20%.

Along with underdiagnosis, a cause of exacerbations is delayed treatment.  Part of this is also caused by insufficient adherence to a prescribed medication regime, but also to delayed reporting.  Symptoms of an exacerbation generally occur about a week prior to a discernible reduction in lung function, but all too often that week is spent without medical care because patients tend to delay reporting symptoms until their lung function is affected.

To reduce the impact of COPD as well as the potential for rehospitalization, the following is recommended:  First, the biggest impact an individual can have on COPD is to stop smoking.  Individuals should also reduce their exposure to air pollutants, including cigarette smoke and industrial chemicals (whether at the work place or in home cleaning products).  Those experiencing an exacerbation of symptoms should report it immediately and should follow all medication guidelines given by their doctor.  For doctors, guidelines for the use of spirometry (a breathing test to measure lung function) can provide a more accurate diagnosis of COPD.  Presenting information to patients about the importance of the above measures can also help reduce COPD exacerbations and potential for rehospitalization.

To view a one-page PDF with an overview of the cause-and-effect relationships, and recommended solutions for minimizing the impact of COPD, please click “Download PDF” above.    Or, visit the COPD Foundation to learn more.  You can also view a Cause Map of America’s Smoking Epidemic, here.

Root Cause

Two Los Angeles area nurses are stabbed the same morning at different hospitals by different attackers

By ThinkReliability Staff

The stabbing of a nurse that took place in a Los Angeles County, California hospital on April 20th, 2014, resulted in the serious injury of a nurse.  The danger of increasing violence and attacks within hospitals was demonstrated by this and an unrelated incident at another Los Angeles County hospital that happened later that same morning.  Both involved stabbings to nurses, though in the first case, the attacker used a knife after he bypassed security and in the second case, the attacker stabbed a nurse with a pencil.

By performing a root cause analysis of just one demonstrative case, solutions that can prevent similar issues (like the one that happened later that very day as well as many other recent cases of hospital violence) can be developed.  We will use Cause Mapping, a visual diagram of cause-and-effect relationships, of this case as an example of hospital violence.

The first step in the Cause Mapping process is to describe the what, when, and where of an incident, and define the impacts to an organization’s goals.  In this case, the employee safety goal is impacted by the serious injury to a nurse.  The patient safety goal is impacted by the potential for injury to a patient.  The patient services goal is impacted by the fact that a violent attacker was able to bypass a weapons screening area.  It’s unclear from the information available whether other goals were impacted in this case.  Once that is determined the “?” can be replaced with the actual impacts to the goals, or “none”.

It can be helpful to determine the frequency of a type of incident.  Clearly, since about seven hours passed between two stabbings of nurses within the same county in California, the frequency of these types of attacks is much too high.

Next, cause-and-effect relationships are determined by beginning with an impacted goal and asking “Why” questions.  In this case, the injury to the nurse was caused by multiple stabbings.  The stabbings resulted from the nurse encountering a violent attacker and were impacted by the response time.  (In this case, security was searching for the man after he bypassed the weapons screening and was alerted to his presence when the attacked nurse began to scream.)   It is unclear how the man was able to bypass the weapons screening station, but ideally improvements that would decrease the possibility of entrants bypassing it in the future will be implemented.

Violence within hospitals has been increasing over recent years, believed to be due to a number of factors.  In addition, nurses and other hospital personnel have noted the difficulty in determining the potential for an escalation of violence in patients and other visitors.  According to the President of the Emergency Nurses Association, Deena Brecher, R.N.,”You need to be able to recognize when things are starting to escalate.  We know our behaviors can help escalate a situation, not intentionally.”

Many nurses are calling for establishment of workplace violence plans that would provide nurses and other hospital workers tools to identify and de-escalate potentially violent behavior, as well as provide additional protections against these types of attacks.  Some hospitals have begun using a mobile distress system, such as a help button worn around the neck that allows a worker to request backup in a situation that feels unsafe.

These solutions bring up an interesting discussion about prevention and blame.  The solutions listed above all require action by the part of nurses or hospital workers.  Many organizations attempt to determine the person to “blame” for a situation, and then assign corrective actions accordingly.  Clearly, nobody is trying to imply that hospital workers are at fault for these violent attacks (blame) but are rather trying to provide tools within their sphere of control to reduce the risk of worker injury (prevention).  Preventing all people prone to violence from entering a hospital, while theoretically more effective at solving the problem, is neither practical nor possible.  Thus it is hoped that providing hospital workers additional tools will result in reduced injuries from hospital violence.

To view the Outline and Cause Map, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or view the Workplace Violence Prevention for Nurses course offered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Root Cause

Concern Over Rising Costs of Specialty Drugs

By Kim Smiley

The good news is that more and more specialty drugs that show promise for treating serious medical conditions are becoming available.  The bad news is that some of these drugs are really expensive, both for insurance companies and individuals.

The new issues swirling around specialty drugs are illustrated well by the new drug for treating hepatitis C from Gilead Sciences.  The new drug is a significant improvement over previous treatment with a higher cure rate, a shorter duration and fewer reported side effects, but it carries an equally significant price tag.  The pills cost $1,000 each with a typical course of treatment costing $84,000.  The pills are in high demand and Gilead has reported a record breaking $2.3 billion in sales of their new hepatitis C drug during its first full quarter on the market.  But on the flip side, UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest US insurers, has reported it has spent $100 million to cover the hepatitis C drug and had their stock prices decrease.

An insurance company losing money may not seem like a source of concern, but more of the burden of the cost of specialty drugs is being passed along to patients as insurance companies figure out how to deal with the high price of specialty drugs.  Some insurance plans require patients to cover twenty percent of the cost of specialty drugs and 20 percent of $84,000 is beyond the means of many patients.  And some specialty drugs are even more expensive.  Also, financially healthy insurance companies are also vital if they are going to provide medical insurance at prices people can afford.

So why are these drugs so expensive? There are a number of factors that make specialty drugs so expensive.  One of them is that they generally treat a condition that relatively few people suffer from.  When more people take a particular drug, the development costs of the drug can be spread out and recouped over a larger population making the overall cost less for each individual.  The opposite occurs when there are fewer people who will take a particular medication: the development costs are more concentrated, making drugs for less common conditions more expensive in general.

There is also not usually a generic alternative available for specialty medication.  Many of the expensive specialty medications are newer and still protected by patents so that generics can’t be manufactured.  Most specialty medications are also biologics, meaning they are derived from living organizations, and they can’t be duplicated.  Medications with generic versions available tend to be chemically-based and easier to replicate.

Only time will tell how specialty medications will continue to shape the healthcare system, but their presence is only likely to grow as more drugs are developed.  Solutions will need to be developed to allow patients reasonable, affordable access to specialty medications, but also keep insurance and drug companies in business.

To see a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis, of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause

US Doctors Issue Statement That Mothers Should Avoid Water Births

By Kim Smiley

The number of water births in the United States has been increasing in recent years and controversy over their safety continues to rage.  The latest development is that the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently issued a joint statement saying that water births are not recommended and should be avoided, but some midwives and mothers disagree and adamantly defend the benefits of birthing in water.  The doctors agree that soaking in water during early labor may make the experience more pleasant for mothers, but feel that actual birth should be outside of the birthing tub.

One of the issues is that the benefits of water birthing are difficult to prove and the potential risks are difficult to quantify .  Some mothers believe that birthing in water helps relieve pain and can aid in a drug-free delivery.  Supporters of the practice also think that birthing in water can shorten labors, which reduces stress on the mother and the baby.  Some midwives have also expressed a belief that water births are gentler on babies, saying that many do not cry when they are born.  It’s difficult to definitively study the impacts of water births because birth outcomes depend on so many factors and you can’t do a double-blind study because it’s pretty much impossible to have a placebo for a water birth.

There have been reports of individual cases where something went wrong during a water birth, but there is little information on how often this occurs.  There is general agreement that complications are rare, but the doctors  releasing the statement feel the risk of complications outweighs the benefits.  The most serious concern is the baby drawing its first breath underwater, which could lead to breathing issues and even drowning.  There is also a risk of umbilical cord ruptures since the baby must be brought to the surface relatively quickly and the cord may be too short.  There is also increased risk of infection for the mother and baby since they are both exposed to potentially contaminated water because birth can get messy.

Until now, there has been little formal guidance provided about water births.  Providing more information for expectant mothers is a great first step, but disagreement between medical professionals about birthing methods can add confusion to an already stressful time.  Until more studies are done to provide a better understanding of the risks involved, women will have to rely on their own judgment and the guidance of their healthcare provider.

To view an Outline and Cause Map of this issue, please click “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause

Analysis of Causes of Patient Data Breaches

By ThinkReliability Staff

When dealing with a seemingly overwhelming problem, care should be taken to ensure that resources are used most effectively by addressing the causes that have the biggest impact on the issue.  Take the case of HIPAA breaches of medical records.  Since February of 2010, 26.8 million individuals in the United States have been impacted by a data breach.  There are multiple potential causes that could result in these data breaches. So, where should efforts be directed to be most effective?

Looking at actual events and determining the probability of different types of failure can better direct your solutions, even if your organization hasn’t personally experienced a data breach.  We do this in a proactive Cause Map, which looks at potential causes and – when data is available – determines the relative probability of each contributing cause.  Luckily for us, this analysis has already been performed for data breaches reported to the HHS since February 2010.  We will use here breach analysis and graphs created by medical software research resource Software Advice in a recent report on the subject.

The biggest cause of patient data record breaches is theft.  Theft accounts for at least 48% of breaches.  (There were also incidents described as combination, other or unknown, which may also involve theft.)   As an example, a health insurance provider lost nine server drives that included information for 1.9 million people, two years after a portable disk drive was stolen that included personal data for 1.5 million members.  (View our analysis of patient data breaches caused by theft in our previous blog.)

The next largest cause of patient data breaches is unauthorized access.  Unauthorized access is the cause of 18% of data breaches.  These types of breaches have the potential to result in employee action in addition to the other goals that are impacted.  These events may involve outside contractors, or “Business Associates” (BAs).  BAs are involved in 22% of incidents, but account for 48% of impacted individuals due to data loss.  An example of a patient data breach caused by an outside contractor is the case involving records of 20,000 patients, which were posted online by a contractor.  (View our analysis of this data breach in our previous blog.)

Loss accounts for 11% of patient data breaches.  This includes the largest patient data breach from the time period covered, when a TRICARE BA (contractor) lost backup tapes, impacting the records of nearly 5 million patients.   Improper disposal, such as when a shredding company abandoned the records of 277,000 patients in a public park, accounts for 5%.  Hacking also occurred in 6% of breaches, such as when the servers at the Utah Department of Health were broke into and records for almost 800,000 people were stolen. (Remaining events are classified as a combination of the above, other, or unknown.)

The HIPAA Omnibus Rule clarified liability for Business Associates and subcontractors, which should serve to reduce their involvement in data breaches.  But for the events that don’t involve outside parties, how can these events be reduced?

Focusing on two of the most likely causes of breach – theft and loss – encryption can reduce the risk that data can be accessed if physical devices are stolen.  Laptops account for 22% of breaches, and other portable devices account for 12%.  However, encryption won’t help with paper records, which account for 23% of data breaches.  In these cases, limit to access of records and prevention by removing records from the storage site can help, as can moving from paper records to electronic health records, which accounted for only 2% of  data breaches.  However, the storage devices used for electronic health records, including laptops, as discussed above, network servers (10%), computer (13%) are more likely to be involved. Because physical storage devices account for so many data breaches, whether or not electronic records are being used, cloud storage is worth consideration.  Although hacking is still a concern, remember that it accounts for just 6% of breaches – as opposed to theft and loss, which make up nearly 60% of breaches.

To view the proactive analysis/ Cause Map of these data breaches, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read more.

Root Cause

RISK: Vaccines vs. Disease

By ThinkReliability Staff

Although endemic transmission of measles has been considered “interrupted by vaccination” in the United States, a recent measles outbreak has brought to the forefront the risks of not getting vaccinated.  A member of a church in Texas, who had not received the full measles vaccination, traveled to Indonesia, an area where measles is still endemic.  The disease, which is easily spread in close contact, then infected at least 20 other members of his church, which has concerns about the risks of vaccination, especially bundled vaccinations like the MMR (measles/ mumps/ rubella) vaccine.

In recent years, people have been increasingly concerned about the risks of vaccination.  One of the main concerns with the MMR vaccine is its purported link to autism (which was first mentioned in a 1998 study that has been mostly discredited).  There are, of course, risks to vaccination for any disease.  According to the CDC, risks from the MMR vaccine include mild problems, such as fever (up to 1 person out of 6), mild rash (up to 1 person out of 20) and very rare severe problems, such as allergic reactions (which occur in less than 1 out of a million doses).

However, as the CDC notes “The risk of the MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.  Getting the MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.”  This brings us to the other side of the equation.  People who do not get vaccinated for these diseases face the risks of getting the disease.  According to Dr. Paul Offit, Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, “There are only two ways you can develop specific immunity, either be infected by the natural virus or be immunized.  A choice not to get a vaccine is not a risk-free choice, It’s a choice to take a different and more serious risk.”

Because transmission of measles had been considered effectively stopped in the US, not vaccinating may have seemed like a minor risk.  After all, there are some people who cannot receive the vaccine.  This includes young children, pregnant women, and those who may be suffering from other health concerns.  These people have generally been protected by “herd immunity”.   This refers to the unlikelihood of getting measles when a very high percentage of the population is vaccinated against it.

However, in recent years, the number of people choosing not to get vaccinated has been increasing.  Sometimes these people are clustered geographically, such as within a church that has expressed its concerns about vaccinations (as in the recent outbreak in Texas).  When unvaccinated persons travel to an area that has not made as much progress towards eradicating disease, the likelihood of disease spreading is much higher.

This is true for other diseases as well.  The Texas Department of State Health Services has recently released a health alert regarding vaccination against pertussis (whooping cough) after more than 2,000 cases this year, including two deaths of infants too young to be vaccinated..  Says Dr. Lisa Cornelius, the Department’s infectious diseases medical officer, “This is extremely concerning.  If cases continue to be diagnosed at the current rate, we will see the most Texas cases since the 1950s.”

Although the potential risk of a vaccine may seem frightening, it is important to ensure that everyone in your family is fully vaccinated.  Not only will this provide the best protection for each of you, it will also provide protection to those members of your community who cannot be vaccinated, and limit the spread of these diseases.  Some communities are experiencing this the hard way. The Texas church involved in the outbreak has begun offering vaccination clinics for its members to attempt and stop the outbreak and protect against another one.

You can view the Outline and Cause Map discussing this issue by clicking “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause

Patient Dies After Fall During Transfer

By ThinkReliability Staff

A medical center in California received a fine for an adverse event in which a patient’s fall at the facility resulted in his death.  As a part of the investigation into these types of events, a plan of action to mitigate the risk of similar events occurring in the future.  In order to best determine which events will be helpful in decreasing future risk, a full accounting of the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the incident being investigated can be helpful.  We can develop a visual map of the causes that resulted in this incident in a Cause Map, a visual form of root cause analysis which determines all relevant causes in order to offer the most possible solutions.

We begin our analysis with a summary of the “what, when and where” of the event, as well as determining which of the organization’s goals were impacted.  In this case, the patient safety goal was impacted due to the patient death.  The compliance goal is impacted because the facility was found to be noncompliant with requirements for licensure as a result of this event.  The fine from the state health department can be considered an impact to the organizational goal.  The patient services goal was impacted due to the improper transport of a patient.  Lastly, it was found that equipment was missing necessary safety features.  This can be considered an impact to the property/ equipment goal.

Once we have determined the impacts to the goals, we can begin with one impacted goal and ask “Why” questions to  determine the cause-and-effect relationship that led to the impacted goals.  In this case, we begin with the patient safety goal.  Why was the patient safety goal impacted? Because of a patient’s death.  Why did the patient die? His death was due to rib fractures and internal bleeding.  Why? Because of blunt force trauma.  Why? Because the patient fell out of a geri/bed chair (a device that can be used as a stretcher semi recliner or chair).

To ensure that the causes we include in our analysis are accurate, we include evidence wherever possible.  Evidence allows validation of the inclusion of causes on the Cause Map.  In this case, the evidence for the cause of death is provided by the autopsy report.

In addition to continuing to ask “Why” questions to add more detail to the Cause Map, we can also add additional impacted goals to the Cause Map.  For example, the patient fall out of the geri/bed chair was what caused the noncompliance with licensure that is an impact to the compliance goal.  This noncompliance caused the fine to the facility.   The patient fell out of the geri/bed chair due to inadequate transport, which impacted the patient services goal.

In some cases, more than one cause is necessary to result in the effect.  The inadequate transport was caused by the patient – who had been assessed as a high fall risk – being both left unattended and not secured in the geri/bed chair.  The patient was not secured on the geri/bed chair because it did not have straps.  It’s also possible he was not secured, and was left unattended, because the transport team, who took him to the radiology department to get an X-ray, was not aware of his high fall risk.  Although a transfer form is used to turn the care of a patient over to another team in cases such as this, there was no record on the transfer form that indicated a report being made to the transfer team that would have included information about the patient, including his fall risk.

As part of the investigation, corrective actions are required.  As is typical in these cases, many of the solutions included additional training and education to staff to reduce the risk of these events happening again.  Although usually included as part of the corrective actions for adverse events, training (or re-training) and continued education are some of the least effective solutions in terms of error recurrence.  (After all, presumably the staff had already been trained on the policies and requirements that were already in place at the time of the accident.)  More effective solutions include changes in policy that result in increased patient safety.  For example, in this case the transport policy has been updated to ensure that patients are left in locations where they can easily be monitored.  This of course will not prevent all falls, but may prevent some, and will certainly lead to staff noticing falls quickly.  Even more effective are changes in equipment to make following policies easier.  In this case, the geri/bed chair that was used for patient transport did not have a strap, even though its use was required.  It is unreasonable to expect busy staff to spend their time searching for equipment that has the proper safety equipment.  Rather, ensure that all geri/bed chairs or other transport devices have the required safety devices.  I’m sure you can imagine that it is much more likely for staff to comply with a policy requiring use of safety devices when the devices are available and by doing so, will reduce the risk of patient falls, and patient deaths.

To view the Outline, Cause Map, and recommended solutions please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read the state department of health report.