Tag Archives: patient safety

Root Cause Analysis

Shortage of Life Saving Cancer Drug

By Kim Smiley

Shortage of a lifesaving cancer drug, methotrexate, has hospitals scrambling to find enough drugs to treat patients. Methotrexate has long been a treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or ALL, and a type of bone cancer called osteogenic sarcoma.  A particular form of methotrexate without alcohol-based preservatives is needed to treat ALL because a high dose must be injected directly into the spines of patients and preservatives can be toxic and cause paralysi at such a high dose.  With treatment, ALL can be cured more than 90 percent of the time.  What makes this drug storage particularly heart breaking is that ALL most often strikes between ages 2 to 5.  If hospitals don’t have adequate supplies of preservative free methotrexate, children will die from a disease that is largely curable.

This issue can be analyzed by building a Cause Map, an intuitive, visual root cause analysis.  A Cause Map is built by determining the impact to the overall goals and then asking “why” questions to add causes that contributed to the issue and show the cause-and-effect relationships between the causes.  In this example, the safety goal is clearly impacted because there is a risk of patient death.

To begin adding causes to the Cause Map, we could ask why that is true.  Patients may die because they have cancer, the doctors may not be able to treat the cancer and the cancer is fatal if untreated.  Why might the doctors be unable to treat the cancer?  There is a shortage of the required medication because the plant that was the primary supplier for US is shut down.  The plant is voluntarily shut down so that significant manufacturing and quality issues can be addressed.  In order to understand the issues, it is also worth asking why one plant manufactured so much of the supply of methotrexate.  As much detail as necessary can be added to the Cause Map.  Once the Cause Map is built, the information can be used to brain storm solutions and determine which should be implemented.  To view a high level Cause Map of this issue, click on “Download PDF” above.

In this example, the FDA is currently negotiating with five plants that are approved to manufacture methotrexate to increase their production of the drug.  In the meantime, the plant that was shut down has worked with the FDA to allow distribution of some of the methotrexate that was manufactured, but not shipped prior to the shutdown.  Hospitals still have a smaller supply of methotrexate than would be desired, but all patients’ needs are currently being met.

 

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

Concerns over Faulty Implants

By Kim Smiley

Thousands of women received faulty breast implants between 2001 and 2010.  These implants contain substandard silicone, not approved for medical use, and are also rupturing at a usually high rate.  It isn’t clear at this time what the long term health risks associated with these implants might be.  The faulty implants were manufactured in France, but eighty percent were exported so the wide spread nature of the problem also complicates the implementation of any possible solutions. (These implants were not sold in the US.)

This issue can be investigated by building a Cause Map, an intuitive, visual root cause analysis.  A Cause Map is built by asking “why” questions to determine what causes contributed to an issue.  In this example, women are facing health risks because they received faulty breast implants.  The implants are considered faulty because they are filled with substandard, non-medical grade silicone and they are rupturing at twice the industrial average.

The implants were filled with industrial grade silicone, instead of medical grade, because industrial grade silicon is far less expensive and the company was trying to cut costs.  Hundreds of thousands of these implants were manufactured before any quality issues were raised so inadequate oversight should also be considered as a potential cause.  It isn’t clear why the implants are rupturing at an unusually high rate at this time, but that information can be added to the Cause Map once it is available.

The long term health consequences of this issue also aren’t clear yet.  The substandard silicone used may have impurities in it that could pose a health risk in addition to any health effects that result from the ruptured implants in general.  There are concerns that the implants are increasing the risk of breast cancer, but there isn’t any hard evidence that this is the case at this point.  All the countries involved are struggling to weigh the known risks of removing the implants with the unknown risks of leaving them in place.  There is also the question of costs and who will pay for removal or replacement of the faulty implants. Ongoing monitoring for signs of leakage and ruptures are recommended for any woman who chooses to keep the implants.

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.

Hospital Acquired Condition

Facial Burns from Surgical Fires

By ThinkReliability Staff

At least two patients received burns to the face from surgical fires in early December 2011.  Surgical fires are becoming an increasing risk to patients (and staff) in the operating room.  Although the 550-650 surgical fires a year that are estimated to occur by the ECRI Institute is a small percentage of patients undergoing surgery, this doesn’t make surgical fires seem “rare” to those who are affected.

A surgical fire, like any fire, requires the presence of three elements: a heat (or ignition) source, fuel, and an oxidizing agent.  Oxygen is necessarily present for breathing; however, additional oxygen supplied to the patient increases the risk of a fire.  Additionally, nitrous oxide produces oxygen from thermal decomposition.  An increased level of oxygen increases the risk of a surgical fire.  Like oxygen, fuel will always be present in a surgical room.  Prep agents, drapes, and even a patient’s hair are fuel sources.  Vapors from insufficiently dry prep agents are extremely flammable.  Although some drapes are advertised as flame-resistant, the ECRI has determined that all types of drapes burn in oxygen.

Surgical equipment, such as electro-cautery devices and lasers, are believed to provide the ignition source for many surgical fires.  The increased use of such devices is believed to contribute to the increase in surgical fires.  Although these devices can provide benefits during surgery, a non-ignition source tool should be considered for surgery performed near the oxygen supply of a patient requiring oxygen.

The best way to protect patients from surgical fires is to prevent them by reducing the use of oxygen, decreasing the flammability of potential fuel sources in the operating room (by allowing prep agents to dry and coating hair or other flammable objects with water-based lubricant) and ensuring that heat sources are monitored carefully to reduce the risk of ignition.  In addition, operating teams should be prepared in the case of fire to minimize effects on patient and staff safety by taking steps to extinguish the fire and evacuate if necessary.

The effects and causes of surgical fires, as well as some recommended solutions, can be diagrammed in a Cause Map, a visual form of root cause analysis.  To view the Cause Map for surgical fires, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read a more detailed write-up about patient burns.

Additional resources on surgical fires:

ECRI Institute

FDA

The Joint Commission

Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation (APSF)

Root Cause Analysis

Surgical Tools Cleaned with Hydraulic Fluid

By Kim Smiley

In late 2004, a healthcare system in North Carolina realized that it had been using elevator hydraulic fluid instead of cleaning detergent when cleaning its surgical tools.  Before the problem was realized, the improperly cleaned tools were used on 3,650 patients.  An analysis by infection control, material and toxicology experts determined that the sterilization process of the tools was not affected and that trace metals left on the tools from the hydraulic fluid were in too small of amounts to cause risk to patients.  Nonetheless, the potential for these safety risks is an impact to the patient safety goal.  Additionally, the fact that improperly cleaned tools were used on patients is an impact to the patient services goal.  Lastly, the re-cleaning and sterilization required for the tools is an impact to the labor goal.

This incident can be examined in a Cause Map or visual root cause analysis. The first step is to define the problem with respect to the impacts to the organization’s goals, as described above.  The second step is to begin with the impacted goals and ask “why” questions to diagram the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the incident.  In this case, improperly cleaned tools were used on patients because the tools were cleaned with hydraulic fluid and the tools were used on patients.  The tools were used on patients because it was not immediately obvious that they had been improperly cleaned.  The tools did retain an oily feel; however, the tools are lubricated as part of the cleaning and sterilization process to avoid rust and ensure proper operation and so may retain an oily feel.

The tools were cleaned with hydraulic cleaning fluid because the hydraulic fluid was stored in the cleaning detergent containers and delivered to system hospitals.  The containers were filled with elevator hydraulic fluid by an elevator maintenance company and left where they were picked up by the cleaning detergent provider.  The provider did not realize that the containers had been tampered with (as they were not relabeled and either had no indication of tampering or were not inspected for tampering) and so delivered them to the hospitals for use.

Once the problem was realized, the affected tools were re-cleaned and sterilized and the detergent replaced.  Follow-up monitoring was performed and appointments offered to the affected patients, despite determination that the sterilization process was not affected and that the trace metals were not in sufficient amounts to affect patient safety.  Employees were trained in container management and a process was added to verify the status of containers delivered to and used in the hospital.  Additionally, a process to determine when product integrity has been compromised.  An external review by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services has certified that the impacted hospitals are in compliance with standards based on these implemented corrective actions.

To view the Outline, Cause Map and implemented solutions, please click “Download PDF” above.  Or click here to read information provided by the affected healthcare system.

Root Cause Analysis

Working to Ensure Safe Assembly of Surgical Tools

By ThinkReliability Staff

A 2-month old was undergoing a cystoscopy to incise a ureterocele in the bladder.  During the endoscopic procedure, a resectoscope was used to remove the unwanted tissue.  However, during the operation part of the resectoscope slipped off, exposing a hook-shaped internal piece of the instrument.  Fortunately the patient was not injured; however the potential for injury was very real.  How did the medical instrument come apart?

The first step in an incident investigation is to determine what the problem is and what the impacts to the organization’s goals are.  In this case, the problem is fairly straightforward – the resectoscope fell apart while inserted into a patient.  Although details are scant in this case, the problem statement is filled out as completely as possible to document what occurred.  The second part is to determine the impact to the organization’s goals.  An obvious impact is the potential harm to the patient, related to the hospital’s patient safety goal.  There was also the possibility of legal action, which would impact property goals.  Finally, there likely was the need to redo the procedure, taking additional time, thus impacting the organization’s labor goal.

The second step is to build a Cause Map by asking why an event occurred.   The Cause Map visually depicts what led to the young patient being exposed to harm.  In this case, the three goal impacts converge on the event where the hook electrode became uncovered.  It should be noted that multiple causes led to the patient being exposed to harm; if the resectoscope had been broken but had not been in use, then it would not have mattered.  It is crucial to include all reasons on the Cause Map because those reasons may be key to developing the optimal solution.

Facts that need to be captured about an investigation can be included in evidence boxes on the Cause Map.  They can provide the reader with important background information.  In this example, information about the hook electrode is included so that the reader knows what it is.

Reviewing the complete Cause Map, it turns out that the resectoscope was incorrectly assembled.  The third step in an incident investigation is to develop a set of solutions.  Remembering that all causes are necessary to produce an effect, the investigation team can brainstorm solutions to eliminate or counteract contributing causes.  In this case, three possible solutions were developed.  It is possible that the resectoscope could be designed differently so that the insulation would not be able to slip.  While this is a reasonable long term solution, it would not immediately remedy the problem.  Another solution would be to verify that the instrument is in working order before using on a patient.  This may have occurred, but it should be included until ruled out as a potential solution.  A final idea is to revise the assembly procedures for the resectoscope.  This is in fact what the FDA recommended.

The FDA recommends that the manufacturer’s assembly procedures always be carefully followed.  A process map is another helpful tool to determine where something went wrong.  The organization can build a process map depicting the ideal sequence of events, then compare that with what actually occurred.  The problem may not be in the instructions; the instructions might be perfect!  However, if someone doesn’t follow those instructions correctly, the process isn’t going to reach the desired outcome.

At this point, the investigation team might go back to the Cause Map to elaborate on the why the resectoscope was incorrectly assembled.  This might generate new solutions and changes to the ideal process map.  Through this iterative process, an optimum solution can be found.

This event was reported as part of the FDA’s MedWatch program.  The FDA encourages health professionals to voluntarily report problems on medical devices.  For more information on the MedWatch program, please visit their website.

Root Cause

Interpretation of Electronic Fetal Heart Rate Monitoring

By ThinkReliability Staff

Electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (EFM) is used to determine fetal distress.  When fetal distress is indicated, intervention and/or early delivery are generally performed.  Because of this, EFM is performed frequently, even in low risk births.  However, EFM has a high rate of false positives, resulting in unnecessary surgical intervention, which can impact both patient safety and an organization’s goals, especially as the rate of cesarean sections continue to increase.  One of the causes for these high rates of false positives is the variable and inconsistent interpretation of EFM data.  This is in itself an impact to the patient services goal.

This produces a highly simplified version of the Cause Map, but leads to a cause that has significant opportunity to provide improved results.  Specifically, the cause of “variable and inconsistent interpretation” suggests that guidance for more consistent interpretation may aid in reducing unnecessary surgical intervention due to false positives from EFM.

With guidance provided from the American Family Physician, we can create a process map to aid in the use of EFM.  A process map shows the steps and decision trees involved in a process, attempting to guide practitioners towards accepted best practices.

EFM is used continuously for high risk patients and intermittently for low risk patients  unless abnormalities occur.  There are three types of patterns produced by EFM: reassuring, non-reassuring, and ominous.  (Definitions for these patterns, as well as high risk patients are also from the American Family Physician).  Reassuring patterns generally are found to correlate with fetal health, and indicate that the delivery can continue.  Ominous patterns should lead to evaluation for immediate delivery.  Non-reassuring patterns are found between the two – and so lead to the most difficulty in interpretation.  Specific steps are outlined to be taken in the case of non-reassuring patterns which attempt to normalize the pattern.  Additionally, specific tests are recommended to attempt to determine the cause.  If the cause can be determined and corrected, continuous monitoring should accompany an attempt to continue the delivery.

If the pattern is not normalized, evaluation for immediate delivery should occur.  There is no decision tree at this stage  because the decision on whether (and how quickly) to perform delivery must be determined based on the patient’s specific state, based on the knowledge of the practitioner.  Although some steps remain subjective, attempting to fit those that are not into a process map can improve the odds for everyone.