Striving for high reliability in healthcare: a qualitative study of the implementation of a hospital safety programme

Leahora Rotteau, J. Goldman, Kaveh G. Shojania, Timothy J. Vogus, Marlys K. Christianson, G. Baker, P. Rowland, M. Coffey
{"title":"Striving for high reliability in healthcare: a qualitative study of the implementation of a hospital safety programme","authors":"Leahora Rotteau, J. Goldman, Kaveh G. Shojania, Timothy J. Vogus, Marlys K. Christianson, G. Baker, P. Rowland, M. Coffey","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Healthcare leaders look to high-reliability organisations (HROs) for strategies to improve safety, despite questions about how to translate these strategies into practice. Weick and Sutcliffe describe five principles exhibited by HROs. Interventions aiming to foster these principles are common in healthcare; however, there have been few examinations of the perceptions of those who have planned or experienced these efforts. Objective This single-site qualitative study explores how healthcare professionals understand and enact the HRO principles in response to an HRO-inspired hospital-wide safety programme. Methods We interviewed 71 participants representing hospital executives, programme leadership, and staff and physicians from three clinical services. We observed and collected data from unit and hospital-wide quality and safety meetings and activities. We used thematic analysis to code and analyse the data. Results Participants reported enactment of the HRO principles ‘preoccupation with failure’, ‘reluctance to simplify interpretations’ and ‘sensitivity to operations’, and described the programme as adding legitimacy, training, and support. However, the programme was more often targeted at, and taken up by, nurses compared with other groups. Participants were less able to identify interventions that supported the HRO principles ‘commitment to resilience’ and ‘deference to expertise’ and reported limited examples of changes in practices related to these principles. Moreover, we identified inconsistent, and even conflicting, understanding of concepts related to the HRO principles, often related to social and professional norms and practices. Finally, an individualised rather than systemic approach hindered collective actions underlying high reliability. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that the safety programme supported some HRO principles more than others, and was targeted at, and perceived differently across professional groups leading to inconsistent understanding and enactments of the principles across the organisation. Combining HRO-inspired interventions with more targeted attention to each of the HRO principles could produce greater, more consistent high-reliability practices.","PeriodicalId":49653,"journal":{"name":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","volume":"31 1","pages":"867 - 877"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality & Safety in Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013938","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

Background Healthcare leaders look to high-reliability organisations (HROs) for strategies to improve safety, despite questions about how to translate these strategies into practice. Weick and Sutcliffe describe five principles exhibited by HROs. Interventions aiming to foster these principles are common in healthcare; however, there have been few examinations of the perceptions of those who have planned or experienced these efforts. Objective This single-site qualitative study explores how healthcare professionals understand and enact the HRO principles in response to an HRO-inspired hospital-wide safety programme. Methods We interviewed 71 participants representing hospital executives, programme leadership, and staff and physicians from three clinical services. We observed and collected data from unit and hospital-wide quality and safety meetings and activities. We used thematic analysis to code and analyse the data. Results Participants reported enactment of the HRO principles ‘preoccupation with failure’, ‘reluctance to simplify interpretations’ and ‘sensitivity to operations’, and described the programme as adding legitimacy, training, and support. However, the programme was more often targeted at, and taken up by, nurses compared with other groups. Participants were less able to identify interventions that supported the HRO principles ‘commitment to resilience’ and ‘deference to expertise’ and reported limited examples of changes in practices related to these principles. Moreover, we identified inconsistent, and even conflicting, understanding of concepts related to the HRO principles, often related to social and professional norms and practices. Finally, an individualised rather than systemic approach hindered collective actions underlying high reliability. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that the safety programme supported some HRO principles more than others, and was targeted at, and perceived differently across professional groups leading to inconsistent understanding and enactments of the principles across the organisation. Combining HRO-inspired interventions with more targeted attention to each of the HRO principles could produce greater, more consistent high-reliability practices.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
争取医疗保健的高可靠性:医院安全方案实施的定性研究
背景医疗保健领导者寻求高可靠性组织(HRO)的策略来提高安全性,尽管人们对如何将这些策略转化为实践存在疑问。Weick和Sutcliffe描述了HRO表现出的五个原则。旨在促进这些原则的干预措施在医疗保健中很常见;然而,很少有人对那些计划或经历过这些努力的人的看法进行审查。目的这项单点定性研究探讨了医疗保健专业人员如何理解和实施HRO原则,以应对受HRO启发的全医院安全计划。方法我们采访了71名参与者,他们分别代表医院高管、项目领导、三家临床服务机构的工作人员和医生。我们观察并收集了单位和医院质量安全会议和活动的数据。我们使用主题分析对数据进行编码和分析。结果参与者报告称,HRO原则的制定“关注失败”、“不愿简化解释”和“对操作的敏感性”,并将该计划描述为增加了合法性、培训和支持。然而,与其他群体相比,该计划更经常针对护士,并由护士参与。参与者无法确定支持HRO原则“致力于恢复力”和“尊重专业知识”的干预措施,并且报告了与这些原则相关的实践变化的有限例子。此外,我们发现对HRO原则相关概念的理解不一致,甚至相互冲突,这些概念往往与社会和专业规范和实践有关。最后,个体化而非系统化的方法阻碍了高可靠性背后的集体行动。结论我们的研究结果表明,与其他原则相比,安全计划更支持一些HRO原则,并且针对不同专业群体,并有不同的看法,导致整个组织对这些原则的理解和实施不一致。将HRO启发的干预措施与对每一项HRO原则的更有针对性的关注相结合,可以产生更大、更一致的高可靠性实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Quality & Safety in Health Care
Quality & Safety in Health Care 医学-卫生保健
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of telephone triage for predicting adverse outcomes in suspected COVID-19: an observational cohort study. Quality framework for remote antenatal care: qualitative study with women, healthcare professionals and system-level stakeholders. Addressing social determinants of health in primary care: a quasi-experimental study using unannounced standardised patients to evaluate the impact of audit/feedback on physicians' rates of identifying and responding to social needs. Reporting on implementation trials with null findings: the need for concurrent process evaluation reporting. Antibiotic documentation: death by a thousand clicks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1