A review of the current evidence base for significant event analysis

作者: Paul Bowie , Lindsey Pope , Murray Lough

DOI: 10.1111/J.1365-2753.2007.00908.X

关键词:

摘要: Objective  To review the literature on perceived benefits and disadvantages associated with significant event analysis (SEA) identify reported barriers facilitating factors. Method  A comprehensive search of electronic databases peer reviewed journals was conducted during June 2006. Studies which explored or measured perceptions attitudes in relation to SEA assessed its impact health care quality were included. Results  27 studies identified most undertaken UK general practice. Perceived include: improved communication, enhanced team-working awareness others' contributions. has a strong emotional resonance may lead greater commitment change. Multiple but unverifiable changes practice improvements service through participation. Disadvantages include concerns about litigation, reprisal, embarrassment confidentiality. The reliability is questioned because it lacks robust, standard structured method. Evidence severely limited. Barriers lack training, poor team dynamics, failings facilitation leadership, selective topic choice demands. Facilitating factors effective meetings; protected meeting time; methodical approach; dynamics leadership. Conclusion  chasm exists between high expectations for evidence impact. have some merit as team-based educational tool. However, not be reliable technique investigating serious complex safety issues Policy makers need more explicit actual purpose SEA.

参考文章(25)
Patricia M. Williams, Techniques for root cause analysis. Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center). ,vol. 14, pp. 154- 157 ,(2001) , 10.1080/08998280.2001.11927753
C. P. Bradley, C. M. Carmichael, M. Pringle, A. Moore, H. Wallis, Significant event auditing. A study of the feasibility and potential of case-based auditing in primary medical care. Occasional paper (Royal College of General Practitioners). ,(1995)
Gwyneth Rees, Sharon Edmunds, Guro Huby, Evaluation and development of integrated teams: The use of Significant Event Analysis Journal of Interprofessional Care. ,vol. 19, pp. 125- 136 ,(2005) , 10.1080/13561820400024233
S. Taylor-Adams, C. Vincent, N. Stanhope, Applying human factors methods to the investigation and analysis of clinical adverse events Safety Science. ,vol. 31, pp. 143- 159 ,(1999) , 10.1016/S0925-7535(98)00062-9
R. Westcott, G. Sweeney, J. Stead, Significant event audit in practice: a preliminary study Family Practice. ,vol. 17, pp. 173- 179 ,(2000) , 10.1093/FAMPRA/17.2.173
Emma Henderson, Helen Hogan, Andy Grant, Anita Berlin, Conflict and coping strategies: a qualitative study of student attitudes to significant event analysis Medical Education. ,vol. 37, pp. 438- 446 ,(2003) , 10.1046/J.1365-2923.2003.01490.X
Colin Stern, Career intentions of preregistration house officers and the influence of career advice British Journal of Hospital Medicine. ,vol. 66, pp. 477- 479 ,(2005) , 10.12968/HMED.2005.66.8.18515
A. Miles, P. Bentley, A. Polychronis, N. Price, J. Grey, Clinical audit in the National Health Service: fact or fiction? Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. ,vol. 2, pp. 29- 35 ,(1996) , 10.1111/J.1365-2753.1996.TB00026.X
Matthew Boxall, Louise M Wallace, SEA for GP practice managers: lever or lemon? British Journal of Healthcare Management. ,vol. 10, pp. 138- 142 ,(2004) , 10.12968/BJHC.2004.10.5.18702