As one of the leading causes of deaths and injuries, medical errors constitute a veritable threat to patient safety. Despite this fact, no unique method has yet been established to identify and evaluate medical errors. This study was conducted to select an optimal human reliability analysis method compatible with healthcare systems from available methods.
Design/methodology/approach: In order to select the optimal method for the identification and evaluation of medical errors, different criteria and sub-criteria were determined by reviewing the literature and based on experts’ opinions. Next, weights of criteria and sub-criteria were specified by using the fuzzy analytical network process (ANP). Finally, fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution method was used to prioritize the methods.
Findings
Six criteria and 21 sub-criteria for choosing the optimal method were determined. The utility, usability, and structure of a method had the highest influence with weights of 0.262, 0.191, and 0.187, respectively. Based on the results of fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution, the Human Error Assessment and Reduction Technique method with a closeness coefficient of 0.576 was selected as the optimal method for identifying medical errors. The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System and Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach methods ranked second and third, respectively.
Originality/value: To date, no studies have attempted to determine the optimal methods for identification and assessment of medical errors. This paper aimed to fill this gap by using fuzzy analytical network process and fuzzy technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution techniques.
BatesDW, et al.
The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA1997;
277: 307–311.
2.
DonaldsonMSCorriganJMKohnLT.To err is human: building a safer health system.
Vol. 6.
Washington, DC:
National Academies Press, 2000.
3.
KalraJKalraNBaniakN.Medical error, disclosure and patient safety: a global view of quality care. Clin Biochem2013;
46: 1161–1169.
4.
ReasonJ.Human error.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.
5.
KhooEM, et al.
Medical errors in primary care clinics – a cross sectional study. BMC Fam Pract2012;
13: 127.
6.
JacobsS, et al.
Errors and adverse events in family medicine: developing and validating a Canadian taxonomy of errors. Can Fam Physician2007;
53: 270–276.
7.
DingesDF, et al.
Cumulative sleepiness, mood disturbance, and psychomotor vigilance performance decrements during a week of sleep restricted to 4–5 hours per night. Sleep1997;
20: 267–277.
8.
SandalGM.The effects of personality and interpersonal relations on crew performance during space simulation studies. Life Support Biosph Sci1998;
5: 461–470.
9.
HelmreichRL.On error management: lessons from aviation. BMJ2000;
320: 781–785.
10.
SaremiMFallahMR.Subjective fatigue and medical errors among nurses in an educational hospital. Iran Occup Health2013;
10: 1–8.
11.
WoodwardHI, et al.
What have we learned about interventions to reduce medical errors?Annu Rev Public Health2010;
31: 479–497.
12.
BonnefondA, et al.
Effects of nocturnal railway noise on subjective ratings of sleep and subsequent cognitive performance. Somnologie2008;
12: 130–138.
13.
GabaDMHowardSKJumpB.Production pressure in the work environment. California anesthesiologists’ attitudes and experiences. Anesthesiology1994;
81: 488–500.
14.
LandriganCP, et al.
Effect of reducing interns’ work hours on serious medical errors in intensive care units. N Engl J Med2004;
351: 1838–1848.
15.
KalraJ.Medical errors: an introduction to concepts. Clin Biochem2004;
37: 1043–1051.
16.
LeapeLL.A systems analysis approach to medical error. J Eval Clin Pract1997;
3: 213–222.
17.
ApkerJMallakLAGibsonSC.Communicating in the “gray zone”: perceptions about emergency physician–hospitalist handoffs and patient safety. Acad Emerg Med2007;
14: 884–894.
18.
RiesenbergLA, et al.
Residents’ and attending physicians’ handoffs: a systematic review of the literature. Acad Med2009;
84: 1775–1787.
19.
PhamJC, et al.
Reducing medical errors and adverse events. Annu Rev Med2012;
63: 447–463.
20.
Van Den BosJ, et al.
The $17.1 billion problem: the annual cost of measurable medical errors. Health Aff2011;
30: 596–603.
21.
Christoffersen K and Woods DD. “How Complex Human–Machine Systems Fail: Putting ‘Human Error’ in Context,” In: Karwowski W and Marras WS (eds) The Occupational Ergonomics Handbook, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2003, pp.601–616.
22.
LeapeLL, et al.
The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med1991;
324: 377–384.
23.
LyonsM, et al.
Human reliability analysis in healthcare: a review of techniques. Int J Risk Safety Med2004;
16: 223–237.
24.
LyonsM.Towards a framework to select techniques for error prediction: supporting novice users in the healthcare sector. Appl Ergon2009;
40: 379–395.
25.
DeeterJRantanenE. Human reliability analysis in healthcare. In: Proceedings of symposium on human factors and ergonomics in health care, 2012.
26.
NajafpourZ, et al.
Preventing blood transfusion failures: FMEA, an effective assessment method. BMC Health Serv Res2017;
17: 453.
27.
TruccoPOnofrioRGalfanoA. Human Reliability Analysis (HRA) for surgery: a modified HEART application to robotic surgery. In: V. D Duffy VG and Lightner N (eds) Advances in human factors and ergonomics in Healthcare. Berlin: Springer, 2017, pp.27–37.
28.
HsiehM-C, et al.
Application of HFACS, fuzzy TOPSIS, and AHP for identifying important human error factors in emergency departments in Taiwan. Int J Ind Ergonom2018;
67: 171–179.
29.
KhandanM, et al.
SHERPA technique as an approach to healthcare error management and patient safety improvement: a case study among nurses. Health Scope2017;
6(2): e37463. DOI: 10.5812/jhealthscope.37463.
30.
HollnagelE.Cognitive reliability and error analysis method (CREAM).
Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 1998.
31.
PuenteJ, et al.
A decision support system for applying failure mode and effects analysis. Int J Qual Reliab Manag2002;
19: 137–150.
32.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Revisions to joint commission standards in support of patient safety and medical health care error reduction, 7 July 2001, Oakbrook Terrace, IL: JCAHO.
33.
DeRosierJ, et al.
Using health care failure mode and effect analysis™: the VA National Center for Patient Safety’s prospective risk analysis system. Joint Comm J Qual Improv2002;
28: 248–267.
34.
KirwanB.A guide to practical human reliability assessment.
Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press, 1994.
35.
ChadwickLFallonEF.Human reliability assessment of a critical nursing task in a radiotherapy treatment process. Appl Ergon2012;
43: 89–97.
36.
ShappellSAWiegmannDA.The human factors analysis and classification system – HFACS, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington, DC. 2000. Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/publication/737
37.
EmbreyD. SHERPA: a systematic human error reduction and prediction approach. In: Proceedings of the international topical meeting on advances in human factors in nuclear power systems, 1986.
38.
KirwanB.Human error identification techniques for risk assessment of high risk systems – part 1: review and evaluation of techniques. Appl Ergon1998;
29: 157–177.
39.
PetruniA, et al. Applying analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to choose a human factors technique: choosing the suitable human reliability analysis technique for the automotive industry. Saf Sci2019;
19: 229--239.
40.
ChandlerF, et al. Human reliability analysis methods: selection guidance for NASA.
Washington, DC:
NASA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance, 2006, p.123.
41.
Munson S. Assessment of Accident Investigation Methods for Wildland Firefighting Incidents by Case Study Method, University of Montana, 2000.
42.
SkletS.Comparison of some selected methods for accident investigation. J Hazard Mater2004;
111: 29–37.
43.
HsiehT-YLuS-TTzengG-H.Fuzzy MCDM approach for planning and design tenders selection in public office buildings. Int J Project Manag2004;
22: 573–584.
44.
ÖnütSKaraSSIşikE.Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Syst Appl2009;
36: 3887–3895.
45.
AdamsWSaatyR.Super decisions software guide. Super Decisions2003;
9: 43.
46.
SagirMOzturkZK.Exam scheduling: mathematical modeling and parameter estimation with the analytic network process approach. Math Comput Model2010;
52: 930–941.
47.
WenboL.Comprehensive evaluation research on circular economic performance of eco-industrial parks. Energy Procedia2011;
5: 1682–1688.
48.
TsaiT-N.Selection of the optimal configuration for a flexible surface mount assembly system based on the interrelationships among the flexibility elements. Comput Ind Eng2014;
67: 146–159.
49.
PatilSKKantR.A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of knowledge management adoption in supply chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Syst Appl2014;
41: 679–693.
50.
ShappellSAWiegmannDA. Applying reason: the human factors analysis and classification system (HFACS). Hum Factors Aerosp Saf2001;
1: 59–86.
51.
PouyaABHabibiE.The comparative study of evaluating human error assessment and reduction technique and cognitive reliability and error analysis method techniques in the control room of the cement industry. Int J Environ Health Eng2015;
4: 14.
52.
StamatisDH.Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution.
Milwaukee, WI:
ASQ Quality Press, 2003.
53.
CarayonP, et al.
Human factors systems approach to healthcare quality and patient safety. Appl Ergon2014;
45: 14–25.
