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
. 2021 Aug;35(1):232-240.
doi: 10.1007/s12028-020-01160-6. Epub 2021 Jan 5.

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: Engineering Safer Neurocritical Care Transitions

Affiliations

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis: Engineering Safer Neurocritical Care Transitions

Priyanka Chilakamarri et al. Neurocrit Care. 2021 Aug.

Abstract

Background/objective: Inter-hospital patient transfers for neurocritical care are increasingly common due to increased regionalization for acute care, including stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage. This process of transfer is uniquely vulnerable to errors and risk given numerous handoffs involving multiple providers, from several disciplines, located at different institutions. We present failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) as a systems engineering methodology that can be applied to neurocritical care transitions to reduce failures in communication and improve patient safety. Specifically, we describe our local implementation of FMEA to improve the safety of inter-hospital transfer for patients with intracerebral and subarachnoid hemorrhage as evidence of success.

Methods: We describe the conceptual basis for and specific use-case example for each formal step of the FMEA process. We assembled a multi-disciplinary team, developed a process map of all components required for successful transfer, and identified "failure modes" or errors that hinder completion of each subprocess. A risk or hazard analysis was conducted for each failure mode, and ones of highest impact on patient safety and outcomes were identified and prioritized for implementation. Interventions were then developed and implemented into an action plan to redesign the process. Importantly, a comprehensive evaluation method was established to monitor outcomes and reimplement interventions to provide for continual improvement.

Results: This intervention was associated with significant reductions in emergency department (ED) throughput (ED length of stay from 300 to 149 min, (p < .01), and improvements in inter-disciplinary communication (increase from pre-intervention (10%) to post- (64%) of inter-hospital transfers where the neurological intensive care unit and ED attendings discussed care for the patient prior to their arrival).

Conclusions: Application of the FMEA approach yielded meaningful and sustained process change for patients with neurocritical care needs. Utilization of FMEA as a change instrument for quality improvement is a powerful tool for programs looking to improve timely communication, resource utilization, and ultimately patient safety.

Keywords: Inter-hospital transfer; Intracerebral hemorrhage; Neurocritical care; Neurology; Quality improvement; Stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Dr. Chilakamarri has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Finn has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Sather has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Sheth reports grants from Novartis, grants from NIH, during the conduct of the study.

Dr. Matouk has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Parwani has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Ulrich has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Davis has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Pham has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Chilakamarri has nothing to disclose.

Dr. Chaudhry reports and Dr. Chaudhry serves as a reviewer for the CVS Caremark State of Connecticut Clinical Program.

Dr. Venkatesh reports grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, grants from NIH/NIA, grants from NIH - National Center for Advancing Translational Science, during the conduct of the study

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Pre-process map [Communication components of transfer]
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Post-process map [Redesign of inter-hospital transfer communication]
Figure 3:
Figure 3:
Fish-bone process map

References

    1. James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. J Patient Saf 2013;9:122–8. - PubMed
    1. Kitch BT, Cooper JB, Zapol WM, et al. Handoffs causing patient harm: a survey of medical and surgical house staff. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2008;34:563–70. - PubMed
    1. Holland CM, McClure EW, Howard BM, Samuels OB, Barrow DL. Interhospital Transfer of Neurosurgical Patients to a High-Volume Tertiary Care Center: Opportunities for Improvement. Neurosurgery 2015;77:200–6; discussion 6–7. - PubMed
    1. Mohorek M, Webb TP. Establishing a conceptual framework for handoffs using communication theory. J Surg Educ 2015;72:402–9. - PubMed
    1. Byrne RW, Bagan BT, Slavin KV, Curry D, Koski TR, Origitano TC. NEUROSURGICAL EMERGENCY TRANSFERS TO ACADEMIC CENTERS IN COOK COUNTYA PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER STUDY. Neurosurgery 2008;62:709–16. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources