Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

INTRODUCTION: Significant resource is invested into investigation of adverse healthcare events. Outcomes of such investigations have varying degrees of effectiveness. The "hierarchy of effectiveness" model proposes system-focused changes have greater impact than person-focused actions. The traditional approach to investigation is root cause analysis (RCA); however, such an approach does not prioritize system-focused action generation. Learning team-based investigations are thought to generate more effective system-focused actions; however, this has not been evaluated. METHODS: Retrospective mixed methods evaluation of learning teams compared with RCA. Twenty-two learning team investigations compared with 22 RCA investigations, with quantitative assessment of the number of system-focused and person-focused actions generated. Assignment of the two different methods to incidents was not random, with learning teams being selected for cases, which were initially judged to be process-focused problems. Semistructured interviews were conducted with four learning team facilitators with thematic analysis to identify causes for outcome variations. RESULTS: Learning team investigations yielded a median of 7.5 actions compared with 3.5 actions for RCA: 57% of learning team actions were system focused versus 30% for RCA. We identified variations in personnel involved, culture of the investigation, and differences in the investigative approaches as potential drivers for these differences. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that learning team investigations that targeted process-focused problems generated more actions and a higher number of system-focused actions. There is a difference in culture created during learning team investigations. Although learning teams are not suitable for all investigations, they represent a readily reproducible and valuable addition to the investigative toolkit.

Original publication

DOI

10.1097/PTS.0000000000000641

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Patient Saf

Publication Date

24/03/2020