Tag Archives: solutions

Root Cause

Multiple Potential Causes for Avian Flu Outbreak

By ThinkReliability Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Root Cause

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

By ThinkReliability Staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Root Cause

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

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

Root Cause

Program Reduces Use of Antipsychotics & Improves Resident’s Quality of Life

By ThinkReliability Staff

Although the use of antipsychotic drugs for nursing home residents suffering from dementia can increase their risk of death and falls, they are still prescribed for nearly 300,000 nursing home residents across the U.S. The “Nursing Home Patients Bill of Rights” allows their use only under specific conditions: “psychoactive drugs (including antipsychotics as well as drugs for depression and anxiety) may be administered only on the orders of a physician and only as part of a written plan designed to eliminate or modify the symptoms for which the drugs are prescribed. Such drugs may be given only if, at least annually, an independent, external consultant reviews the appropriateness of the drug plan of each resident receiving such drugs.”

Despite the risk of these drugs, and the requirement that their use be continually reviewed, some nursing home residents are given antipsychotic prescriptions and are never taken off them. In 2009, the staff of a small nursing home decided to embark on a program to reduce the use of antipsychotics. It was so successful that they extended the program to all the nursing homes owned by the nonprofit Ecumen. After the first year, antipsychotic use was reduced 97%. At the original facility, 5-7% of residents receive antipsychotics, compared to the national average of 19%.

The change in the residents’ quality of life was dramatic after the program was instituted. Because the residents “came alive and awakened”, they called the program Awakenings. To understand how the program works, it’s helpful to imagine the program being the solution to the problem of overuse of antipsychotics in nursing homes.

First, viewing the problem with respect to the organization’s goals can help determine what the real issue to be addressed is. In this case, resident safety and resident quality of life are two important goals of a nursing home. Resident safety is impacted by the use of antipsychotics because it increases the risk of death and the risk of falls. Resident quality of life is impacted because the use of antipsychotics was not being effectively re-evaluated as required.

The risk of increased death and falls are both related to the use of antipsychotics, which have been found to increase death in those with dementia and also increase the risk of falls. Generally the residents at the nursing home were found to have been prescribed antipsychotics as an intervention to some type of behavior resulting from the dementia (wandering, aggression, resisting care) and the resident’s need for antipsychotics was not effectively re-evaluated, so residents remained on the drugs.

A program to reduce their use had to address both of these causes. The nursing home team consulted with experts to begin weaning patients off the antipsychotics. The Awakenings process then addressed the behaviors being treated with the medication. For each resident, both the medical and personal history is taken into account while developing a care strategy. The care strategy is distributed to the entire care team, including housekeepers and cooks. The care strategy uses as many non-medication-based interventions as possible – and addresses all of the resident’s five senses. Some of the strategies include balloon volleyball, massage, aromatherapy and white noise. For those familiar with the Plan-Do-Check(Study)-Act, this is the “Plan” step.

The care plan is implemented by all staff (Do) and all staff participate in observation and assessment to monitor problem behaviors or other issues (Check/ Study). When issues do arise, the care plan is adjusted – whenever possible, without use of additional medication (Act). The process is described by the Awakenings program like this: “Long-term antipsychotic use masks behavioral symptoms rather than addressing them.   Awakenings discovers unmet needs that often trigger behavioral symptoms and addresses the triggers with non-pharmacological care techniques.  This is done in collaboration with a physician to reach the optimum balance and benefit of non-pharmacological and biomedical approaches.” Although the initial setup is expensive; as Dr. Mark Lachs, chief of geriatrics at Weill Cornell Medical College says, “Behavioral interventions are far more time-consuming than giving a pill”, the staff is pleased with the results and optimistic for the future. Laurel Baxter, the Awakenings project manager says, “I believe we may learn that spending a little time now with a resident, preventing the use of psychiatric medications and their side effects, you’ll save time and money in the long run. I’m optimistic.”

To see the root cause analysis of antipsychotic overuse in a Cause Map (or visual diagram of cause-and-effect relationships) and the Awakenings process, please click on “Download PDF”.

Root Cause

Hospital Admits Fault, Implements Improvements after Death due to Medication Error

By ThinkReliability Staff

A hospital in Oregon administered the wrong medication to a patient who stopped breathing. Because of a fire alarm that happened shortly afterwards, the patient was not monitored for about twenty minutes. After that time the patient had experienced irreversible brain damage and was taken off life support on December 3, 2014.

In a surprising move, the hospital has taken responsibility for the error. Dr. Michel Boileau, the chief clinical officer, has stated, “We do know there was a medication error. We acknowledge that. It’s our mistake.” While an Oregon law, which took place in July, encourages transparency with patients and loved ones and reporting in the case of medical errors, the hospital says communication in the case of errors has been its practice for years and that it’s the right thing to do.

Supporting the transparency, the victim’s son says, “We want the community to know what happened. Precautions need to be taken. The only message we really have is that life is short and you never know when something like this could happen.”

Detailed information regarding the case has been released in the media. Using that information, it is possible to put together a Cause Map showing the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the death, and show how the hospital’s planned improvements address the causes.

In this case, administration of the paralyzing agent Rocuronium instead of the prescribed anti-seizure medication fosphenytoin caused the patient to stop breathing, leading to cardiac arrest and irreversible brain damage. Monitoring of the patient may have caught the lack of oxygen prior to irreversible damage, but in this case the patient was not monitored. Shortly after the administration of the IV, the hospital experienced a fire alarm (“code red”), at which point staff left the patient’s room and closed her door. Staff estimates she was unmonitored for about twenty minutes.

Medication errors that happen within hospital facilities almost always involve an error in the medication process. As part of the investigation, Dr. Boileau states, “We’re looking for any gaps or weaknesses in the process, or to see if there has been any human error involved.” So far the hospital has determined that the IV bag given to the patient was filled with the wrong medication at the in-patient pharmacy but then coded for the correct drug. It’s unclear exactly what happened at the pharmacy, but there was either no check of the medication filling or the check was ineffective, as it allowed the wrong drug to be delivered to the patient for administration.

According to the hospital’s chief nursing officer, Karen Reed, “We are all committed to honoring Ms. Macpherson’s name by learning everything there is to learn here and making sure no other patient has to go through this again.” While the investigation into the details continues, the hospital has already planned some improvements to work towards that goal.

To reduce the risk of medication errors, the hospital is designating a safe zone to be used for medication verification. (Distraction has been shown to be a primary driver of medication mix-ups.) They’re also reviewing and updating their medication protocols and ensuring that a detailed checking process is implemented. Because of the particular danger associated with mistakes involving paralyzing agents (like Rocuronium), alert stickers have been added to these types of drugs. Because of the issues with patient monitoring, procedures that ensure patient monitoring after IV administration (presumably even in the case of an unusual event or emergency) will be implemented.

What does this mean for you? Medication errors are considered rare, but even one is one too many. Medication administration processes at healthcare facilities must be designed to minimize the risk of error by reducing interruptions and ensure double checks. Other guides, such as alert stickers, can be used to emphasize particular risks (not limited to medication errors). In healthcare facilities (or any other facilities where operations can’t safely be put “on hold”), there needs to be a plan for ensuring that necessary tasks are performed, even with emergency or unusual situations.

Read more about this incident.

Learn more about medication errors.

Root Cause

Causes for Medication Errors Identified in Cumulative Cause Map

By ThinkReliability Staff

Despite continuing efforts to reduce patient safety impacts from medical errors, more work is needed to make patients safer. One of the areas which has been identified as a key safety issue is that of medication errors within healthcare facilities. A Cumulative Cause Map is a tool that can identify causes proactively (before incidents occur) based on industry experience, including past errors. As a Cause Map is a visual form of root cause analysis, a Cumulative Cause Map can be considered a visual form of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA). It captures potential causes (causes that COULD result in an impact to patient safety) in order to develop and implement solutions that will reduce the risk of the impacts.

In this case, the term “medication error” is used to refer collectively to errors that result in patients receiving the wrong medication, patients receiving medication prescribed for another patient, patients receiving the wrong dose of the correct medication or having the correct medication delivered by the wrong route, and patients receiving medication to which they have a known allergy or has a negative interaction with another medication the patient is known to be taking. An adverse drug event (or ADE) results when the medication error causes patient harm. Our analysis will focus on preventable issues. (Patients may experience an ADE even when a medication is administered correctly.) About half of ADEs are considered preventable, i.e. they result from a medication error.

In this case, our Cumulative Cause Map will identify errors that occur at all steps of the medication delivery process. This process begins when a need for medication is identified and ends when the medication has been administered to the patient. At a very high level, there are four steps to this process: prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, and administration. The process typically begins with a physician, who prescribes the medication, moves to a clerk who transcribes the prescription (if necessary), then to a pharmacist who dispenses the medication, and then typically to a nurse, who administers the medication.

Based on information from studies, industry guides, and case studies of actual medication errors, common issues can be identified at each step of the process. In the prescribing stage, a medication can be prescribed for the wrong patient if there has been insufficient verification of the patient’s identity (and a matching of the patient to their medical records). Additionally, an inappropriate medication, dose or route may be prescribed if the physician is unaware of a patient’s allergies or other medications which could interact with those being prescribed. Miscalculating a dose is another potential error at the prescribing stage. Distraction and/or similar-sounding drug names are other causes for prescription errors.

In the transcribing stage, errors typically result from legibility issues on handwritten prescriptions. However, distraction and/or similar sounding drug names can result in the wrong medication/ dose and/or route of administration being transcribed. Distraction and/or similar sounding drug names is an issue during the prescribing step, as is miscalculating a dose. When medications have to be substituted (for availability or cost concerns), there’s also the potential to choose an inappropriate medication if a patient’s allergies or current medications are unknown.

At the administration step, medication can be administered to the wrong patient due to insufficient identity verification. Or, the wrong medication, dose or route can be administered due to similar sounding names and/or distraction. According to the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, every interruption increases the risk of medication error 12.7%, and medical staff can be interrupted as often as every two minutes while working on the medication delivery process. For this reason many hospitals are trying to reduce interruptions of medical staff during this process by various means.

By looking at the causes that come up again and again in the proactive analysis, steps for improvement at each level of the process can be identified. Ensuring that the right patient is matched to the medical record/ care instructions at every step of the process can reduce medication being administered to the wrong patient. The use of non-handwritten prescriptions and including both the drug’s brand name, generic name and purpose can also reduce the risk of the wrong drug being administered. Ensuring that drug allergies are clearly captured within a patient’s records (and potentially on the patients themselves, in the form of a wristband) and that a current medication list is up to date can reduce the risk of drug reactions. An organization’s experience with these different types of errors will allow it to determine what level of control over each cause is necessary to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.

To view the one-page PDF with a proactive analysis of medication errors in healthcare facilities, please click “Download PDF” above. To learn more about Medication Errors, please join our FREE Webinar on December 18th.

Root Cause

The Hand is Quicker Than the Sneeze

By Kim Smiley

A new study, simply titled “How Quickly Viruses Can Contaminate Buildings and How to Stop Them”, found that a single source of contamination can spread to 40 to 60 percent of people and commonly touched objects within 2 to 4 hours.  As stated by Charles Gerba, a researcher at University of Arizona who worked on the study, “what we really learned was the hand is quicker than the sneeze in the spread of disease.”

To study the spread of viruses within a building, researchers contaminated a variety of surfaces in several different buildings with a benign virus that lives and multiplies within bacteria to use as a tracer.  The particular virus used was bacteriophage MS-2, which is similar to noroviruses which are a common cause of the stomach flu.

After some time had passed, researchers sampled surfaces that can harbor infectious organisms, such a light switches and faucet handles, to see how far the planted virus had spread. What they found was that the virus had spread to a majority of commonly touched surfaces after just two to four hours.  They also found that the bathroom wasn’t the worst offender; the break room was the most contaminated location.  (Just think how many people touch the coffee pot handle!)

The study also included an intervention phase where cleaning personal and employees were provided with quaternary ammonium compounds (QUATS) disinfectant containing wipes and instructed on proper use (at least once daily). After the use of the wipes, researchers retested the surfaces and found that the number of places where the virus was detected was reduced by 80% and the concentration of the virus was drastically reduced.

The recommended solutions that can be used to limit the spread of disease are relatively cheap and easy.  Washing hands with soap and water or using alcohol-based hand sanitizer is still the best way to reduce the spread of infectious organisms.  This study also showed that the use of wipes containing QUATS just once a day can prevent the spread of illness.  For most circumstances, neither of these practices should be cost nor time prohibitive.

This study didn’t exactly reach shocking conclusions –  all of us know we should be washing our hands after using the bathroom and before preparing food or eating – but it’s still a good reminder.  Flu and cold season is coming soon and some simple precautions can keep everybody healthier.

To view the Cause Map, a visual root cause analysis, of the results of this study – click on “Download PDF” above.

Root Cause

Health Declines as Veterans Wait for VA Care

By ThinkReliability Staff

On September 5, 2014, a tragic story was released of a man who lost most of his nose due to spreading cancer.   When diagnosing cancer, it’s generally acknowledged that the earlier the cancer is caught, the less the risk of the cancer spreading.  In this case, the veteran waited over two years for a biopsy.  He is one of thousands of patients who have had to wait unreasonable amounts of time for care through the Veterans Administration (VA) system.

Although the issues with delay of veterans care appear to be nationwide, looking at one particular incident can help shed some light on not only what went wrong, but possibilities for reducing the risk of it happening in the future.  The Inspector General examined dozens of cases of patients who died while waiting for care at the Phoenix VA hospital in order to determine the impacts of the delayed care, the causes related to it, and recommendations for fixing the problem.  We can also examine the impact, causes and potential solutions for the care issue by performing a root cause analysis based on the story of this particular patient.  (His case was not covered in the IG report, which primarily examined deaths of veterans while waiting to be seen at VA facilities.)

We can capture the analysis in a Cause Map, which visually lays out the cause-and-effect relationships that resulted in an incident in order to provide the maximum opportunities for improvement.  After the what, when and where of the incident are captured, it’s important to determine the impacts to the goals resulting from a particular issue.  In this case, the patient’s safety was endangered because of the spread of cancer.  The patient services goal was impacted because the patient lost most of his nose as a result of inadequate treatment at the healthcare facility.  The schedule/operations goal is impacted due to the delay in treatment of the patient.  In order to better quantify the effects of an overarching issue such as this one, a frequency of events is essential.  In this case, the Inspector General found that delayed treatment was clinically significant for at least 28 other veterans at the same VA hospital.  (The Inspector General also found that 40 veterans died while waiting for appointments but was unable to determine if the deaths were due to the delays.)

Beginning with an impacted goal, asking “Why” questions adds detail to the Cause Map.  The spread of the patient’s cancer was caused by a delay of treatment.  Treatment was delayed due to the exceptionally long wait for a biopsy (two and a half years) as well as the wait between the diagnosis and treatment (surgical removal).  Insufficient capacity and large numbers of veterans seeking care at the VA hospital resulted in veterans waiting months or even years for care.  Because (as described by a whistleblower physician from the site) the site used “secret” waiting lists (where patients were effectively put on a non-official waiting list for the waiting list so that the reported wait was within an acceptable time frame), oversight of the facility was minimal.  As in this case, many veterans prefer to get care at a VA facility and/or don’t have another type of insurance that would cover the costs incurred for healthcare needs.

As expected, the results of these investigations have resulted in a number of personnel being removed from their positions in the VA.  The “secret” waiting lists were used to hide the fact that the VA hospitals don’t appear to have the capacity for the number of veterans that need treatment.  Significant additional funding is being directed towards the VA in order to build more hospitals and hire additional medical staff.   In the meantime (and possibly continuing into the future if capacity continues to be inadequate), arrangements for veterans to receive covered care at other facilities are being made.

In light of these highly publicized issues, hopefully the VA will receive the funding and oversight it needs so that the nation’s veterans can receive the care they deserve.

Root Cause

Solving the Problem of Organ Donation

By ThinkReliability Staff

6,570 Americans die every year waiting for a donor organ.  Says Johns Hopkins surgeon Dr. Andrew Cameron, “There just aren’t enough organ donors to go around.  That’s not a medical problem.  That’s a social problem.”  Though 95% of people support organ donation, only 40% are registered organ donors.  For the over 123,000 people on the waiting list, there just aren’t enough donor organs to go around.

This issue can be addressed within a Cause Map, a visual root cause analysis.  The first step is to capture the “what”, “when”, and “where of the incident, as well as the impact to the goals.  In this case, the problem is lack of donor organs available, causing patient deaths.  Though the problem exists everywhere, the focus of this blog will be on ongoing organ shortage in the United States.  Important differences in the United States related to organ donation are that only 40% of Americans are registered organ donors (despite widespread public support), and that there is no central registry of organ donors within the United States.  (Organ registries are typically state-run.)

The large number of deaths resulting from inadequate donor organs is an impact to the patient safety goal.  The delay in receipt of organs can be considered both an impact to the patient services and schedule/operations goal.  The lack of available organs can be considered an impact to the property goal.

To develop the cause-and-effect relationships that led to the impacted goals, we ask “why” questions.  In this case, the patient deaths result from the need for donor organs due to disease or injury, and the delay in receipt of organs.  The delay in receipt of organs is due to a lack of available organs.  Millions of Americans die every year, and while not all organs are acceptable for transplant, more than one organ can often be used from donors, resulting in multiple lives saved from each donor.

In an interesting cause-and-effect result, increased traffic safety has resulted in fewer fatal traffic accidents of young, healthy people, which has led to a decrease in available donor organs.  Of course there is no effort to try and increase organ donation by stopping the decrease of deaths of young people.

The shortage of donors from people who are eligible (upon death or brain death) result from not signing up for the organ donation registry and/or from a family not choosing to donate organs.  There are multiple reasons suggested for people not choosing to register or donate organs.  To solve the problem, companies are working on increasing the number of donors.  Dr. Cameron coordinated with Facebook to allow users to register as organ donors and saw the number of organ donors go up “22 fold”.  Says Dr. Cameron, “That’s proof that we can move the needle.”  The startup Organize is “building a portfolio of technology that makes it easier for people to demonstrate their desire to be an organ donor.”  The company hopes that it will improve organ donation to the point that it puts itself out of business in five years.

To view the overview of the organ donation problem and solutions, click on “Download PDF” above.  As discussed in a previous blog, work is also being done to increase the number of organs that are acceptable for donation (in this case with kidneys).