Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:54:07.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementation of a “threat and error” model in complex neonatal cardiac surgery patients to identify quality improvement opportunities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2020

Deanna R. Todd Tzanetos Open the ORCID record for Deanna R. Todd Tzanetos [Opens in a new window] ,
Vicki Montgomery ,
William Harrington  and
Aaron Calhoun
Deanna R. Todd Tzanetos*
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Critical Care, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA
Vicki Montgomery
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Critical Care, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA
William Harrington
Affiliation:
Speed School of Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
Aaron Calhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Paediatrics, Division of Critical Care, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Deanna Todd Tzanetos, MD, MSCI, 571 S. Floyd St. Suite 332 Louisville, KY40202, USA. Tel: +1 502 852 8633; Fax: +1 502 852 3998; E-mail: drtzan01@louisville.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Neonates undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease are vulnerable to adverse events. Conventional quality improvement processes centring on mortality and significant morbidity leave a gap in the identification of systematic processes that, though not directly linked to an error, may still contribute to adverse outcomes. Implementation of a multidisciplinary “flight path” process for surgical patients may be used to identify modifiable threats and errors and generate action items, which may lead to quality improvement.

Methods:

A retrospective review of our neonatal “flight path” initiative was performed. Within 72 hours of a cardiac surgery, a meeting of the multidisciplinary patient care team occurs. A “flight path” is generated, graphically illustrating the patient’s hospital course. Threats, errors, or unintended consequences are identified. Action items are generated, and a working group is formed to address the items. A patient’s flight path is updated weekly until discharge. The errors and action items are logged into a database, which is analysed quarterly to identify trends.

Results:

Thirty one patients underwent flight path review over a 1-year period; 22.5% (N = 7) of patients had an error-free “flight.” Eleven action items were generated – four from identified errors and seven from identified threats. Nine action items were completed.

Conclusions:

Flight path reviews of congenital cardiac patients can be generated with few resources and aid in the detection of quality improvement opportunities. The regular multidisciplinary meetings that occur as a part of the flight path review process can promote inter-professional teamwork.

Keywords

Congenital cardiac surgeryquality improvementpaediatrics
Type
Original Article
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , June 2020 , pp. 860 - 865
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Catchpole, KR, Giddings, AEB, Wilkinson, M, et al. Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery 2007; 142: 102–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catchpole, KR, Giddings, AEB, De Leval, MR, et al. Identification of systems failures in successful paediatric cardiac surgery. Ergonomics 2006; 49: 567–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barach, P, Johnson, JK, Ahmad, A, et al. A prospective observational study of human factors, adverse events, and patient outcomes in surgery for pediatric cardiac disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 136: 1422–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carthey, J, de Leval, MR, Reason, JT.The human factor in cardiac surgery: errors and near misses in a high-technology medical domain. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 72: 300–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacques, F, Anand, V, Hickey, E, et al. Medical errors: the performance gap in hypoplastic left heart syndrome and physiologic equivalents. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 1465–1475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thiagarajan, R, Bird, G, Harrington, K, et al. Improving safety for children with cardiac disease. Cardiol Young 2007; 17: 127–132.Google ScholarPubMed
Bowermaster, R, Miller, M, Ashcraft, T, et al. Application of the aviation black box principle in pediatric cardiac surgery: tracking all failures in the pediatric cardiac operating room. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 220: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Leval, MR, Carthey, J, Wright, DJ, et al. Human factors and cardiac surgery: a multicenter study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000; 119: 661–672.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, T, Holt, T.Complexity and clinical care. BMJ 2001; 323: 685–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickey, EJ, Nosikova, Y, Pham-Hung, E, et al. National Aeronautics and Space Administration “threat and error” model applied to pediatric cardiac surgery: error cycles precede ~85% of patient deaths. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149: 496–507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elhoff, JJ, Lasa, JL.What’s the flight plan, Captain? Ped Crit Care Med 2017; 18: 598–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reason, J.Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spear, SJ.Fixing healthcare from the inside: teaching residents to heal broken delivery processes as they heal sick patients. Acad Med 2006; 81: S144–S149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reason, J.Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000; 320: 768–770.Google ScholarPubMed
Spear, SJ.Fixing healthcare from the inside, today. Harv Bus Rev 2005; 83: 78–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Beauchamp, MR, McEwan, D, Waldhauser, KJ.Team building: conceptual, methodological, and applied considerations. Curr Opin Psychol 2017; 16: 114–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed