Does Root Cause Analysis Improve Patient Safety? A Systematic Review at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Qual Manag Health Care

Department of Education, Atlanta VA Health Care System, Decatur, Georgia (Drs Shah and Falconer); Departments of Medicine (Dr Shah) and Surgery (Dr Falconer), Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; and Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (Dr Cimiotti).

Published: September 2022

AI Article Synopsis

  • RCA (Root Cause Analysis) is a method used to explore medical errors in a systems approach, but there is limited evidence on its effectiveness in reducing patient harm, particularly due to differences in methodology across healthcare organizations.
  • The review focused on the VA's standardized RCA approach and evaluated studies from 2010 to 2020 regarding the effectiveness of interventions on patient safety, using reputable databases for research.
  • The analysis revealed that while all included studies showed improvements in patient safety after RCA interventions, there was a lack of consistency in how effectiveness was defined and measured, highlighting the need for better reporting of outcomes associated with RCA.

Article Abstract

Background And Objectives: While root cause analysis (RCA) is used to analyze medical errors with a systems approach, evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing patient harm remains sparse. The heterogeneity of the RCA methodology at different health care organizations has posed challenges to studying its value. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has an established and standardized RCA approach, making it an ideal context to study RCA's impact. This review assessed whether implemented interventions recommended by RCAs were effective in mitigating preventable adverse events at the VA.

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and Business Source were searched for studies on RCAs performed at the VA that evaluated effectiveness of interventions and were published between 2010 and 2020. The Appraisal Tool for Cross-sectional Studies (AXIS) was used to assess bias of bias.

Results: The majority of studies eliminated during our eligibility process reported on RCAs without attention to their specific impact on patient safety. Ten retrospective studies met inclusion criteria and were part of the final review. Studies were grouped into adverse events related to incorrect surgical/invasive procedures, suicides, falls with injury, and all-cause adverse events. Six studies reported on effectiveness by demonstrating quantitative changes in adverse events over time or by location following a specific intervention. Four studies reported on the effectiveness of implemented interventions using a facility-based rating of "much better" or "better."

Conclusions: Of the studies included in this review, all reported improvements following interventions implemented after RCAs, but with variability in study definitions and methodology to assess effectiveness. Increased reporting of outcomes following RCAs, with an emphasis on quantitative patient-related outcome measures, is needed to demonstrate the impact and value of the RCA.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0000000000000344DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

adverse events
16
root analysis
8
department veterans
8
veterans affairs
8
implemented interventions
8
studies
8
studies reported
8
reported effectiveness
8
effectiveness
5
rcas
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!