Tag Archives: Root Cause Analysis

Root Cause

What Caused an HIV Outbreak in Rural Indiana?

By Kim Smiley

A public health emergency has been declared after 79 cases of HIV were confirmed in rural Indiana, the worst outbreak of HIV the state has ever seen.  Individuals potentially at risk have been encouraged to get tested and the number of cases is expected to rise as more cases are identified. The epidemic has been tied to intravenous drug use, although other risky behaviors may also have spread the disease.

In order to effectively fight this HIV epidemic and hopefully reduce the risk of outbreaks in the future, the factors that have led to these HIV cases needs to be understood. This region has been struggling with the use of Opana, a powerful opioid painkiller, for years.  Opana is commonly injected and health officials believe that the use of dirty needles has been the primary driver of HIV infections although unprotected sex was also a potential pathway for infection for some.  Needle exchange programs are illegal in Indiana and access to clean needles is limited so needles are being shared.  In an environment where needle sharing is common, it takes only one individual infected with HIV to rapidly spread the virus to many other drug users.

HIV is also more likely to be spread if infected individuals are unaware that they are infected and are not being treated.   Identifying an individual who has contracted HIV as early as possible and providing treatment helps prevent the disease from spreading because an HIV-positive person who receives sustained treatment is drastically less infectious, even if they continue to engage in high risk behaviors. Access to healthcare and HIV testing is limited in this region where many residents are uninsured and may lack transportation. Heroin use has long been tied to HIV, but users of Opana (a licensed pharmaceutical) may not have been fully aware of the potential risk from sharing needles.

Now that the HIV epidemic has been identified, healthcare officials are working to reduce the risk of more infections by providing testing and treatment.  One physician is even driving door to door, offering free HIV testing and trying to educate residents on drug addiction and HIV treatment.  Austin, Indiana has established its first ever HIV clinic to provide testing, counseling and treatment.  Targeted resources to help educate residents on drug use and to assist addicts seeking to get clean are also being provided.  The governor of Indiana has approved a short term needle exchange program.  Indiana has also created a public awareness campaign to help inform people about the risks of intravenous drug use.  Drug addiction is a notoriously difficult problem to battle, but the additional resources should help reduce the rate of future HIV cases.

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

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

After Patient Death, CMS Surveyor Declares “Immediate Jeopardy” To Patient Safety

By ThinkReliability Staff

From the moment a patient arrived at an endoscopy clinic in New York on August 28, 2014, things didn’t follow the usual procedure.  The patient brought her own ear, nose and throat physician (ENT) to accompany her into surgery for an esophagogastroduoudenoscopy (EGD), though the ENT did not have privileges at the facility.  The patient signed a consent form for anesthesia, and the EGD and her vital signs were taken, though it appears her weight was either not taken or not recorded.

After a time out that was initiated by the endoscopy technician (as opposed to the anesthesiologist, as required by policy) for the EGD, the patient was administered Propofol for sedation.  After the patient was sedated, the ENT attempted to perform a nasolaryngoscopy, despite not having facility privileges or a record of patient consent, but the initial attempt appears to have been unsuccessful.  After the EGD was completed, the ENT performed another nasolaryngoscopy beginning at 8:28 AM and ending (per interview records) at 8:30 AM.

By that time, the patient’s condition was quickly deteriorating.  Her blood pressure had dropped from its pre-procedure level of 118/80 to 84/40, her pulse from 62 to 47, and oxygen saturation from 100% to 92%.  Both the Cardiac Arrest Record and the Endoscopy Code Blue Record indicate that at 8:28 AM (the same time the second nasolaryngoscopy was beginning) the patient went into cardiac arrest/ ventricular tachycardia and measures were taken for resuscitation (including assisted ventilation, chest compressions, and administration of epinephrine and atropine).

The record of the surgery note that the laryngoscope was withdrawn at 8:30 AM, at which time cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) was undertaken.  The patient was resuscitated and transferred to a hospital, where she died on September 4, 2014.  The cause of death from the autopsy report was anoxic encephalopathy (brain damage) caused by hypoxic cardiac arrest (oxygen deprivation).

The day prior to the patient’s death, a surveyor from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) declared “Immediate Jeopardy” due to “significant findings . . . which compromised patient safety”.  Specifically, the surveyor noted that the facility had risked patient safety by allowing a doctor without privileges to be allowed in the operating room and perform a procedure, and not obtaining consent or performing a time out for a procedure that was performed.

The facility quickly submitted a corrective action plan that revised procedures allowing visitors to the facility, ensuring informed consent and time out procedures are used before every procedure, and providing training on these updated procedures to staff.  Immediate jeopardy was removed on 9/5/14, although the facility was still considered out of compliance with CMS requirements, and was given until March 2 to maintain its certification.  (CMS has not released whether the facility has been successful.)

A lawsuit is underway that may provide more detail as to how the CMS findings caused (or didn’t cause) the patient’s death.  At this point, what is known can be captured in a timeline (for a chronology of events) and a Cause Map (to capture the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the impact to the goals) to start organizing and presenting information logically.  As more information is available, the Cause Map can be updated.

To see the timeline and initial Cause Map, click on “Download PDF” above.

 

Root Cause

This year’s flu vaccine only about 23% effective

By Kim Smiley

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the flu vaccine for the 2014-2015 flu season is only about 23% effective among people of all ages.  While the flu vaccine is not perfect, the effectiveness is generally closer to 60% percent.

So what made this year different?  Why is the flu vaccine so much less effective than what has been previously observed?  The short answer is that creating a flu vaccine is not an exact science and that the experts’ best guess of which flu strains would be the most common wasn’t as good this year.

One of the reasons that a flu vaccine is needed each year while many vaccines (like the MMR vaccine) aren’t is that the flu virus changes relatively quickly.  The strains of flu that are circulating generally morph from year to year and a new vaccine is needed to protect against them.  The lag time inherent in developing a new vaccine also makes attacking this moving target  difficult.  It just takes time to develop a new vaccine that needs to be tested, manufactured and distributed to millions of people.  Companies need about six months to manufacture vaccines in the quantities required so the process of developing a new flu vaccine begins long before the predicted start of the flu season.

Every year there are hundreds of different strains of flu circulating and flu vaccines contain antigens for only 3 or 4 specific strains. Deciding which strains to include in the vaccine each year is not a simple cut and dry decision. Scientists monitor which strains of flu are circulating worldwide and use that data to select which strains to include in the vaccine, but it is difficult to predict how the virus will change months out.  The button line is that sometimes the flu virus changes unexpectedly and the vaccine ends up being less effective, as it did this year when the specific type of H3N2 virus included in the vaccine morphed after the development of the vaccine.

The question of how to prevent a similar problem in the future is tricky and doesn’t have simple answers.  There are scientists working to develop antigens that would respond to a part of the flu virus that doesn’t change, which could potentially lead to a longer lasting flu vaccine.  Until then the best way you can protect yourself is to get the flu vaccine each year. The CDC still recommends people receive the vaccine this year, even with the lower effectiveness, because it does offer some protection against the flu.

And wash your hands often with soap…that is always the simplest way to reduce the spread of disease.

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

Root Cause

Duodenoscope Superbug Outbreak: What You Need to Know

By ThinkReliability Staff

The bacteria involved in the outbreak are deadly: The recent outbreak in California involves Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE). According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Tom Frieden, “CRE are nightmare bacteria. Our strongest antibiotics don’t work and patients are left with potentially untreatable infections.” About 50% of patients with a CRE bloodstream infection will die. At least 7 people were infected at the UCLA Medical Center from October 2014 to January 2015, two of whom died.

Duodenoscopes are frequently used: Duodenoscopes are thin flexible scopes with a light and miniature camera attached, used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures to diagnose and treat liver, pancreas and bile-duct problems. The FDA hasn’t recalled the scopes because, according to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spokeswoman Leslie Wooldridge, “The FDA feels that the lifesaving nature of ERCP, performed on more than 500,000 patients annually in the U.S., makes it important for these devices to remain available.”

Duodenoscopes have been causing problems with infection for a long time: The President of the American Gastroenterological Association, John Allen, M.D. says that duodenoscopes have been causing superbug infections since 1987. He says, “It certainly is disturbing that a fundamental design issue with these scopes would cause problems for this long.” 16 patients developed serious infections after the use of a duodenoscope in France in 2008-2009, as reported in the journal Endoscopy. A 2013 outbreak infected 39 patients in Chicago (after which a duodenscope was destroyed because decontamination efforts were unsuccessful). The FDA received 75 reports involving 135 patients related to duodenoscope contamination from 2013 to 2014. 18 patients in North Carolina have been infected by CRE from duodenoscopes so far this year (2 of those patients have died).

Cleaning duodenoscopes is really difficult: The two duodenoscopes found to have been infected in the California outbreak were “sterilized according to the manufacturer’s specifications”, says the medical center. The FDA issued a warning February 19, 2015, noting that “Recent medical publications and adverse event reports associate multidrug-resistant bacterial infections in patients who have undergone ERCP with reprocessed duodenoscopes, even when manufacturer reprocessing instructions are followed correctly. Meticulously cleaning duodenoscopes prior to high-level disinfection should reduce the risk of transmitting infection, but may not entirely eliminate it.” Effectively, even following the instructions may not fully sterilize the duodenoscope.

The FDA is working on label changes for duodenoscopes: According to Dr. William Maisel, chief scientist for the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, “We are working to expedite modifications to the label. We are also talking about updating the risk information.” The FDA recommends that hospitals “consider taking a duodenoscope out of service until it has been verified to be free of pathogens if a patient develops an infection with a multidrug-resistant organism following ERCP, and you suspect that there may be a link between the duodenoscope and the infection.” The FDA has also asked duodenoscope manufacturers to prove that their recommended methods provide adequate disinfection.

Some worry that may not be enough: Says Mary Logan, chief executive of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, “the devices need to be designed better, the instructions need to be more clear, the hospitals need better training, and adequate time needs to be given in hospitals to ensure sterility is top notch.” The CDC is working with duodenoscope manufacturers on a reprocessing (cleaning and sterilizing for reuse) protocol for the instruments. In the meantime, the UCLA Medical Center has turned to gas sterilization and has reported no new infections since the switch. However, the procedure is highly toxic and poses a risk to staff and patients. The FDA says it is “not something that we routinely recommend”.   Hospitals in North Carolina are screening patients for CRE and isolating infected patients, as well as decontaminating their rooms after they’re released. They’ve also enhanced the cleaning and sterilization processes for duodenoscopes.   At least one hospital is quarantining each device for 48 hours to verify by culture that it’s free of CRE and other infections.

It’s all part of a much bigger problem: Some worry that the time and money being spent dealing with the real, though comparatively small, risk of infection from contaminated duodenoscopes takes away from the broader effort of preventing all hospital infections, especially those that are resistant to antibiotics. The CDC has determined that about 1 in 25 patients acquire a hospital-acquired infection during a hospital stay (see our previous blog on this issue). Says David Ropeik, a consultant in risk perception and communication, the concern over this issue is “going to flare up and then it’s going to go away” but “the world will still be at serious peril from a risk we don’t take seriously, which is antibiotic resistance. Germs are figuring out how to resist our antibiotics faster than we can make new ones.”

If you would like to learn more, attend our FREE webinar “Healthcare Case Study – Hospital-Acquired Infections” on Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 11 am EST.  Register here.

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

The Disneyland Measles Outbreak: What you Need to Know

By ThinkReliability Staff

About 100 people, including 5 Disney theme park employees, have been infected with measles after an outbreak centering around the Disney theme parks in California. According to Disney, those 5 employees have returned to work, along with other exposed employees who have proved immunity against the disease. Because the Disney theme parts are so popular with people all over the world, measles has now been found in at least 10 other counties and 5 other states in the U.S. Says Dr. James Cherry, pediatric infectious diseases expert at UCLA, “Disneyland – this is the ideal scenario. This is sort of the perfect storm. People go to Disneyland, and they went from all different counties and all different states.”

Why measles, and why now?

According to Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, there were an average of 88 cases a year of measles between 2001 and 2013. (Measles was declared eliminated in the US in 2000.) In 2014, there were 644 cases in 23 separate outbreaks.   Although measles is eliminated in the US, “Travelers to areas where measles is endemic can bring measles back to the US, resulting in limited domestic transmission of measles,” according to a California Department of Public Health statement.

Once measles has entered an area, it can spread quickly. Says Matt Zahn, Orange County Health Care Agency medical director, “Measles spreads very easily by air and by direct contact. Simply being in the same room with someone who has measles is sufficient to become infected.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says “Measles is so contagious, that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected.” Additionally, the measles virus can remain “active and contagious on infected surfaces for up to 2 hours,” says the CDC. That 90% makes measles “one of the most infectious or transmissible viruses that we’re aware of,” says a Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at Tufts University School of Medicine.

Decreasing vaccination levels in Orange County, where the outbreak is centered, are fueling the spread of the disease. In 2006, 95% of California kindergartners were fully vaccinated for measles. Now, only 92.6% are. Local officials say the outbreak involves a significant number of people who were not immunized, either by choice or because they are too young (measles vaccines are administered starting at 12 months old) or who have other health issues precluding vaccination.

Vaccination rates of the MMR vaccine (which includes immunization against measles) have been dropping, due to increasing concerns about side effects from vaccines and decreasing concerns about the disease itself. (Click here to read our previous blog about this issue.) Says Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “The development of the measles vaccination and the elimination of measles from this country several years ago, until it bounced back no with these outbreaks, was really a triumph in medical public health endeavor. Good vaccinations, in some respects paradoxically, are victims of their own success. Now that we don’t see a lot of measles, the scare of the difficulty and the seriousness of it is not on people’s radar screen. It gets back on their radar screen when you see what is going on right now throughout the country, which could be completely avoidable if people had vaccinated their children.”

Who is at risk?

According to Orange County Health Agency Spokesperson Deanne Thompson, “It is at large in the community now, and particularly infants too young to be immunized, people with other health conditions and, of course, people who aren’t immunized need to be very concerned. [They] really should rethink that and consider getting vaccinated.”

Anyone who has not been vaccinated for measles is particularly at risk, and California state officials have warned those who have not been vaccinated or are otherwise immune to measles to stay away from the theme parks. It is possible that those who have received the vaccine can also get the disease, though it is far less likely.

What should you do?

“The best way to prevent measles and its spread is to get vaccinated,” says Dr. Ron Chapman, director of California Department of Public Health. If that isn’t possible, at this point, it is recommended to stay away from the Disney theme parks in California until the outbreak is over. If you are taking your baby out of the country, the CDC recommends vaccination at 6 months for measles. If your child does get the measles, keep in mind that’s it not something that doctors today have seen frequently, or possibly at all. The CDC is making an effort to educate physicians. Says Jane Seward, the deputy director of the Division of Viral Diseases for the CDC, “We’ve really tried to hammer home the message that if you see somebody with a febrile rash illness, ask them if they’ve gone overseas, ask them about measles in their community, and ask them about their vaccination status. Think of measles.”

To view a Cause Map, a visual root cause analysis, of this outbreak, click on “Download PDF” above.  To learn more about this issue, click here.

Root Cause

Non-Sterile Product Administered Intravenously to At Least 40 Patients

By ThinkReliability Staff

A non-sterile product that was meant for clinical simulation (training) only was administered intravenously (via IV) to at least 40 patients, one of whom died and at least 17 of whom became seriously ill. Because the death was in a hospice patient, it was not determined definitively that it was caused by the solution. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking no chances – after the reports of patient injury, the FDA had released an alert warning medical practitioners not to use the product “for clinical simulation” on patients. The company that manufactured the products later implemented a recall.

Whether or not the patient death can be blamed solely on the IV use of a non-sterile product, administering a non-sterile product to a patient is clearly an impact to the patient safety and patient services goals. At least 17 injuries (which typically were discovered very quickly after use of the non-sterile IV product) have been tied to the error. The recall is a product goal to the manufacturer – which does not produce any sterile products. The investigation by the FDA is an impact to the labor goal. How these goals were impacted and what is being done or recommended to prevent these impacts can be captured in a Cause Map, a visual root cause analysis diagram of cause-and-effect relationships. (To view the Cause Map, please click on the image above.)

Patient safety was impacted because of the administration of a non-sterile IV product to patients. These patients were receiving saline product via IV to treat various medical conditions (dehydration, for example) and the product was not sterile. Because the product was for training purposes only, it was not meant to be sterile. Healthcare facilities that administered the solution said they were unaware that it was a non-sterile product.

The non-sterile product was delivered to the facility, whether by the ordering or delivery of the incorrect product. According to Dr. Alexander J. Kallen, the medical officer at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “It seems like it’s not just one single mistake. There could have been instances where ordering was done by office staff who didn’t know the difference, as well as instances where the right product was ordered but they received the wrong stuff.” It does appear that the facilities in question (which are located in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, North Carolina, New York, and Colorado) all received the product from the same distributor, indicating a likely issue associated with the distributor’s delivery or ordering process. A nationwide shortage of sterile saline solution may have led to the use of additional suppliers, contributing to the confusion.

Even if the wrong product is delivered to a healthcare facility, there are still multiple opportunities to identify the problem before patient harm results. In this case, had anyone at the healthcare facility looked at the product – which was labeled “For clinical simulation”, the products could have been removed from the facility, as did happen at some facilities, which returned the non-sterile product.

The FDA has requested that all healthcare facilities and product distributors individually inspect saline product to be administered to patients to verify that it is sterile and not intended for training purposes. The manufacturer of the training products has asked its distributors to add language to its advertisements specifying that they are for training, and are not sterile for patient use. In the meantime, the FDA is working with manufacturers of sterile saline to increase the supply, and has provided links to available supply on their website.

What should you do? If you are involved in an IV transfusion, either as a patient or a practitioner, check what’s being delivered and ensure it matches your doctor’s order. Go to the FDA’s site to learn more about the recall, investigation or saline shortage.

 

Root Cause

Infant Death Due to Infection from Water Birth

By ThinkReliability Staff

A recently-released study in the CDC’s Emerging Infectious Diseases Journal discusses causes of the death of an infant from legionellosis (commonly known as Legionnaires’ disease) apparently due to a contaminated tub used for a home water birth. While the tub had been disinfected since the birth (and so did not test positive for legionnella), it is believed that the source of the infection was the tub the baby was born in.

The investigation into the baby’s death discusses various issues with the home water births along with solutions. According to the study, “Findings from this investigation revealed a gap in the standardization and implementation of infection control practices for midwives during home water births. . . recommendations included use of standard written procedures for employees and clients before, during, and after the water birth. These procedural documents were suggested to outline proper timing of tub filling to reduce proliferation of microorganisms, documentation of client awareness of possible risks when deviating from written procedures, and laboratory testing procedures to be followed when birthing tubs are suspected of being contaminated with Legionella or other pathogens.” The specific cause-and-effect relationships that led to the contamination and infant’s death can be viewed in a Cause Map, or visual root cause analysis, by clicking “Download PDF” above.

The birthing tub in this particular case was filled with private well water two days prior to the birth. Upon filling, enzyme-based, non-FDA-approved water purifying drops were added to the water and the water was kept warm and circulated in the tub until the delivery. The tub used was a recreational-grade, jetted tub with internal tubing that is not approved for use as medical equipment and is particularly difficult to disinfect.

There were no procedures provided by the midwifery center that discussed required steps before and during the water birth, though this is not uncommon. The study found that, although most certified nursing midwives supported water birth, only 30% had received training.

Shortly after the infant’s death, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a joint statement saying that water births should be avoided (see our previous blog on this topic). It’s unclear whether or not information regarding the infant’s death in January 2014 was known prior to the statement released in March, 2014, though one of the concerns with water births (along with drowning) was the possibility that the infant could obtain an infection from a water birth.

Over the summer, another infant developed legionellosis from a birthing pool in England, and the National Health Service banned the use of home birthing pools with built-in heaters and recirculation pumps. Internationally, there were no other cases of infants developing legionellosis from water births since the late 1990s.

Though water births or the use of specific types of birthing equipment have not been banned in the US, birthing in a tub is discouraged. The CDC study recommends that procedures and training about cleaning and the disinfection required before and during water births be developed and disseminated through the midwifery community and potential clients. While legionellosis in infants is rare, it is believed that additional cases may be discovered with better surveillance.

Read more: Fritschel E, Sanyal K, Threadgill H, Cervantes D. Fatal legionellosis after water birth, Texas, USA, 2014. Emerg Infect Dis [Internet]. 2015 Jan 7. http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2101.140846 DOI: 10.3201/eid2101.140846

 

 

Root Cause

Patient zero believed to have gotten Ebola from bats

By Kim Smiley

Scientists believe they have identified the origin of the ongoing Ebola outbreak.  The first person believed to have contracted Ebola was a two-year-old boy named Emile Ouamouno from a village called Meliandou in Guinea.  The fact that patient zero was a small child is unusual since he is too young to have been a hunter or travel far from the village alone.  His exposure to bushmeat, which has been identified as a likely culprit for transmission to humans in previous Ebola outbreaks, was also limited.

So how did a young boy contract Ebola?  A Cause Map, a form of visual root cause analysis, can be built to help analyze this issue.  A Cause Map intuitively lays out the causes that contributed to a problem to show the cause-and-effect relationships.  (Click on “Download PDF” above to view a high level Cause Map.)  As the Cause Map shows, researchers believe the boy was exposed to bats that carried Ebola.

Children from the village liked to play in a nearby hollow tree filled with Angolan free-tailed bats. Researchers believe that the boy may have come into contact with either bats infected with Ebola or their feces.   Unfortunately, the tree burned in the time since the Ebola epidemic started and researchers were unable to take samples from it, so it cannot be confirmed conclusively that the bats in the tree spread Ebola.  This information would have been particularly useful because this species of bats has not been previously linked to Ebola and Angolan free-tailed bats commonly live near people.  The scientists were able to rule out larger mammals such as chimpanzees and antelopes as the source of the current outbreak.

Tracking the origins of Ebola has proved difficult, in part because Ebola is a zoonotic disease, meaning that it can be transmitted between species.  Bats have long been suspected of being carriers of Ebola, but scientists have never been able to conclusively prove which animals are responsible for human Ebola outbreaks.  Ebola outbreaks tend to occur in remote areas where it’s difficult to gather data in a timely manner, especially in the midst of an Ebola outbreak.  Cultural differences can also make research difficult because local populations are often suspicious of the researchers, many of who are foreigners.

The current Ebola outbreak has killed nearly 8,000 people and is still spreading.  As populations grow and people are exposed to more animals, outbreaks like this may become more common.  If the species responsible for spreading Ebola could be identified, researchers would be better able to prevent future Ebola cases and possibly prevent outbreaks from occurring.

If you are curious, here are some interesting articles on lessons learned during the Ebola Outbreak –

Malaria killing thousands more than Ebola in West Africa

Ebola’s lessons, painfully learned at great cost in dollars and human lives