...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Health Services Research >Failure mode and effects analysis outputs: are they valid?
【24h】

Failure mode and effects analysis outputs: are they valid?

机译:失效模式和影响分析输出:它们是否有效?

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Background Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a prospective risk assessment tool that has been widely used within the aerospace and automotive industries and has been utilised within healthcare since the early 1990s. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of FMEA outputs within a hospital setting in the United Kingdom. Methods Two multidisciplinary teams each conducted an FMEA for the use of vancomycin and gentamicin. Four different validity tests were conducted: · Face validity: by comparing the FMEA participants’ mapped processes with observational work. · Content validity: by presenting the FMEA findings to other healthcare professionals. · Criterion validity: by comparing the FMEA findings with data reported on the trust’s incident report database. · Construct validity: by exploring the relevant mathematical theories involved in calculating the FMEA risk priority number. Results Face validity was positive as the researcher documented the same processes of care as mapped by the FMEA participants. However, other healthcare professionals identified potential failures missed by the FMEA teams. Furthermore, the FMEA groups failed to include failures related to omitted doses; yet these were the failures most commonly reported in the trust’s incident database. Calculating the RPN by multiplying severity, probability and detectability scores was deemed invalid because it is based on calculations that breach the mathematical properties of the scales used. Conclusion There are significant methodological challenges in validating FMEA. It is a useful tool to aid multidisciplinary groups in mapping and understanding a process of care; however, the results of our study cast doubt on its validity. FMEA teams are likely to need different sources of information, besides their personal experience and knowledge, to identify potential failures. As for FMEA’s methodology for scoring failures, there were discrepancies between the teams’ estimates and similar incidents reported on the trust’s incident database. Furthermore, the concept of multiplying ordinal scales to prioritise failures is mathematically flawed. Until FMEA’s validity is further explored, healthcare organisations should not solely depend on their FMEA results to prioritise patient safety issues.
机译:背景失效模式和影响分析(FMEA)是一种前瞻性风险评估工具,自1990年代初以来已广泛用于航空航天和汽车行业,并已在医疗保健领域使用。这项研究的目的是探讨在英国一家医院内FMEA输出的有效性。方法两个多学科小组各自就万古霉素和庆大霉素的使用开展了FMEA。进行了四种不同的有效性测试:·面部有效性:通过将FMEA参与者的制图过程与观察工作进行比较。 ·内容有效性:通过向其他医疗保健专业人员介绍FMEA调查结果。 ·标准有效性:通过将FMEA调查结果与信托事件报告数据库中报告的数据进行比较。 ·构造有效性:通过探索涉及FMEA风险优先级数字计算的相关数学理论。结果由于研究人员记录了与FMEA参与者相同的护理过程,因此面部有效性是积极的。但是,其他医疗保健专业人员发现了FMEA团队遗漏的潜在故障。此外,FMEA组未能包括与省略剂量有关的失败;但是这些都是信托事件数据库中最常报告的失败。通过将严重性,概率和可检测性得分相乘来计算RPN被认为是无效的,因为它基于违反所使用量表的数学性质的计算。结论验证FMEA面临着重大的方法论挑战。它是帮助多学科小组映射和了解护理过程的有用工具;然而,我们的研究结果对其有效性提出了怀疑。 FMEA团队除了他们的个人经验和知识之外,可能还需要其他信息来源来识别潜在的失败。至于FMEA评分失败的方法,团队的估计与信托事件数据库中报告的类似事件之间存在差异。此外,将序数比例乘以优先处理故障的概念在数学上是有缺陷的。在进一步探讨FMEA的有效性之前,医疗机构不应仅依靠FMEA的结果来优先考虑患者安全问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号