Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 23;32(7):438-444.
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa068.

Beyond the corrective action hierarchy: A systems approach to organizational change

Affiliations

Beyond the corrective action hierarchy: A systems approach to organizational change

Laura J Wood et al. Int J Qual Health Care. .

Abstract

Background: Many patient safety organizations recommend the use of the action hierarchy (AH) to identify strong corrective actions following an investigative analysis of patient harm events. Strong corrective actions, such as forcing functions and equipment standardization, improve patient safety by either preventing the occurrence of active failures (i.e. errors or violations) or reducing their consequences if they do occur.

Problem: We propose that the emphasis on implementing strong fixes that incrementally improve safety one event at a time is necessary, yet insufficient, for improving safety. This singular focus has detracted from the pursuit of major changes that transform systems safety by targeting the latent conditions which consistently underlie active failures. To date, however, there are no standardized models or methods that enable patient safety professionals to assess, develop and implement systems changes to improve patient safety.

Approach: We propose a multifaceted definition of 'systems change'. Based on this definition, various types and levels of systems change are described. A rubric for determining the extent to which a specific corrective action reflects a 'systems change' is provided. This rubric incorporates four fundamental dimensions of systems change: scope, breadth, depth and degree. Scores along these dimensions can then be used to classify corrective actions within our proposed systems change hierarchy (SCH).

Conclusion: Additional research is needed to validate the proposed rubric and SCH. However, when used in conjunction with the AH, the SCH perspective will serve to foster a more holistic and transformative approach to patient safety.

Keywords: active failures; latent conditions; patient safety; root cause analysis; systems change.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000;320:768–70. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dhillon BS. Methods for performing human reliability and error analysis in health care. Int J Health Care Qual Assur 2003;16:306–17.
    1. Canham A, Jun GT, Waterson P et al. . Integrating systemic accident analysis into patient safety incident investigation practices. Appl Ergon 2018;72:1–9. - PubMed
    1. Hughes RG. Tools and strategies for quality improvement and patient safety In: Hughes RG. (ed.). Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2008. - PubMed
    1. National Patient Safety Foundation RCA2: Improving Root Cause Analyses and Actions to Prevent Harm. Boston: NPSF, 2016.