An Evaluation of the Effects of Human Factors and Ergonomics on Health Care and Patient Safety Practices: A Systematic Review
From the viewpoint of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), errors often occur because of the mismatch between the system, technique and characteristics of the human body. HFE is a scientific discipline concerned with understanding interactions between human behavior, system design and safety. To eval...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2015-06, Vol.10 (6), p.e0129948-e0129948 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e0129948 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | e0129948 |
container_title | PloS one |
container_volume | 10 |
creator | Mao, Xuanyue Jia, Pengli Zhang, Longhao Zhao, Pujing Chen, Ying Zhang, Mingming |
description | From the viewpoint of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), errors often occur because of the mismatch between the system, technique and characteristics of the human body. HFE is a scientific discipline concerned with understanding interactions between human behavior, system design and safety.
To evaluate the effectiveness of HFE interventions in improving health care workers' outcomes and patient safety and to assess the quality of the available evidence.
We searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and the CBM (Chinese BioMedical Literature Database), for articles published from 1996 to Mar.2015. The quality assessment tool was based on the risk of bias criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group. The interventions of the included studies were categorized into four relevant domains, as defined by the International Ergonomics Association.
For this descriptive study, we identified 8, 949 studies based on our initial search. Finally, 28 studies with 3,227 participants were included. Among the 28 included studies, 20 studies were controlled studies, two of which were randomized controlled trials. The other eight studies were before/after surveys, without controls. Most of the studies were of moderate or low quality. Five broad categories of outcomes were identified in this study: 1) medical errors or patient safety, 2) health care workers' quality of working life (e.g. reduced fatigue, discomfort, workload, pain and injury), 3) user performance (e.g., efficiency or accuracy), 4) health care workers' attitudes towards the interventions(e.g., satisfaction and preference), and 5) economic evaluations.
The results showed that the interventions positively affected the outcomes of health care workers. Few studies considered the financial merits of these interventions. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality. This review highlights the need for scientific and standardized guidelines regarding how HFE should be implemented in health care. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0129948 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1687821952</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A417656770</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_81287851c23c49c0991668bc4a76777b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A417656770</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-cd4ac141712a92f4cdbea213ef0a984603de4f85d45ad6fb5afa44d33a6eb793</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk11v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBYQkJw0RJ_xIm5QKqqjlaatGmduLVOHLvNlMbFTgq94L_jtNnUoF2gXCTxed7Xx8fnRNFbHI8xTfGXe9u6Gqrx1tZ6HGMiBMueRedYUDLiJKbPT77Polfe38dxQjPOX0ZnhMc8TVN2Hv2Z1Gi2g6qFprQ1sgY1a41mxmjV-O533m6gRpegGus8grpAM7eytd2UKsRrNNdQNWs0BacP0ZtgpOsGLcHoZo9uXFCWSvuvaIKWe9_oTQAUutW7Uv96Hb0wUHn9pn9fRHeXs7vpfHR1_X0xnVyNFBekGamCgcIMp5iAIIapItdAMNUmBpExHtNCM5MlBUug4CZPwABjBaXAdZ4KehG9P9puK-tlXzgvMc_SjGCRkEAsjkRh4V5uXbkBt5cWSnlYsG4lwYW8Ky0zTIIswYpQxYSKhcCcZ7likHY1zYPXt363Nt_oQoVqOKgGpsNIXa7lyu4kY5xT0iXzqTdw9merfSM3pVe6qqDWtj3kLWgseMoD-uEf9OnT9dQKwgHK2tiwr-pM5SRUlSch8ThQ4yeo8BQ6XHboMlOG9YHg80AQmEb_blbQei8Xy9v_Z69_DNmPJ-z60GDeVm3XoX4IsiOonPXeafNYZBzLbkgeqiG7IZH9kATZu9MLehQ9TAX9C0OaC_w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1687821952</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An Evaluation of the Effects of Human Factors and Ergonomics on Health Care and Patient Safety Practices: A Systematic Review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Mao, Xuanyue ; Jia, Pengli ; Zhang, Longhao ; Zhao, Pujing ; Chen, Ying ; Zhang, Mingming</creator><contributor>Bammann, Karin</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mao, Xuanyue ; Jia, Pengli ; Zhang, Longhao ; Zhao, Pujing ; Chen, Ying ; Zhang, Mingming ; Bammann, Karin</creatorcontrib><description>From the viewpoint of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), errors often occur because of the mismatch between the system, technique and characteristics of the human body. HFE is a scientific discipline concerned with understanding interactions between human behavior, system design and safety.
To evaluate the effectiveness of HFE interventions in improving health care workers' outcomes and patient safety and to assess the quality of the available evidence.
We searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and the CBM (Chinese BioMedical Literature Database), for articles published from 1996 to Mar.2015. The quality assessment tool was based on the risk of bias criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group. The interventions of the included studies were categorized into four relevant domains, as defined by the International Ergonomics Association.
For this descriptive study, we identified 8, 949 studies based on our initial search. Finally, 28 studies with 3,227 participants were included. Among the 28 included studies, 20 studies were controlled studies, two of which were randomized controlled trials. The other eight studies were before/after surveys, without controls. Most of the studies were of moderate or low quality. Five broad categories of outcomes were identified in this study: 1) medical errors or patient safety, 2) health care workers' quality of working life (e.g. reduced fatigue, discomfort, workload, pain and injury), 3) user performance (e.g., efficiency or accuracy), 4) health care workers' attitudes towards the interventions(e.g., satisfaction and preference), and 5) economic evaluations.
The results showed that the interventions positively affected the outcomes of health care workers. Few studies considered the financial merits of these interventions. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality. This review highlights the need for scientific and standardized guidelines regarding how HFE should be implemented in health care.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129948</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26067774</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Clinical outcomes ; Clinical trials ; Decision support systems ; Employment ; Engineering ; Ergonomics ; Fatigue ; Health care ; Health care reform ; Hospitals ; Human behavior ; Human factors ; Humans ; Injury prevention ; Intervention ; Job satisfaction ; Medical care quality ; Medical errors ; Medical personnel ; Medicine ; Occupational health ; Occupational safety ; Online databases ; Pain ; Patient care ; Patient Safety ; Quality assessment ; Quality control ; Quality of Health Care ; Researchers ; Safety ; Studies ; Systematic review ; Systems design ; Workloads</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2015-06, Vol.10 (6), p.e0129948-e0129948</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2015 Mao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2015 Mao et al 2015 Mao et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-cd4ac141712a92f4cdbea213ef0a984603de4f85d45ad6fb5afa44d33a6eb793</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-cd4ac141712a92f4cdbea213ef0a984603de4f85d45ad6fb5afa44d33a6eb793</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466322/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4466322/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2100,2926,23865,27923,27924,53790,53792,79371,79372</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26067774$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Bammann, Karin</contributor><creatorcontrib>Mao, Xuanyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jia, Pengli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Longhao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Pujing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Mingming</creatorcontrib><title>An Evaluation of the Effects of Human Factors and Ergonomics on Health Care and Patient Safety Practices: A Systematic Review</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>From the viewpoint of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), errors often occur because of the mismatch between the system, technique and characteristics of the human body. HFE is a scientific discipline concerned with understanding interactions between human behavior, system design and safety.
To evaluate the effectiveness of HFE interventions in improving health care workers' outcomes and patient safety and to assess the quality of the available evidence.
We searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and the CBM (Chinese BioMedical Literature Database), for articles published from 1996 to Mar.2015. The quality assessment tool was based on the risk of bias criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group. The interventions of the included studies were categorized into four relevant domains, as defined by the International Ergonomics Association.
For this descriptive study, we identified 8, 949 studies based on our initial search. Finally, 28 studies with 3,227 participants were included. Among the 28 included studies, 20 studies were controlled studies, two of which were randomized controlled trials. The other eight studies were before/after surveys, without controls. Most of the studies were of moderate or low quality. Five broad categories of outcomes were identified in this study: 1) medical errors or patient safety, 2) health care workers' quality of working life (e.g. reduced fatigue, discomfort, workload, pain and injury), 3) user performance (e.g., efficiency or accuracy), 4) health care workers' attitudes towards the interventions(e.g., satisfaction and preference), and 5) economic evaluations.
The results showed that the interventions positively affected the outcomes of health care workers. Few studies considered the financial merits of these interventions. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality. This review highlights the need for scientific and standardized guidelines regarding how HFE should be implemented in health care.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Decision support systems</subject><subject>Employment</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Ergonomics</subject><subject>Fatigue</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health care reform</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Human behavior</subject><subject>Human factors</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injury prevention</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Job satisfaction</subject><subject>Medical care quality</subject><subject>Medical errors</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Occupational health</subject><subject>Occupational safety</subject><subject>Online databases</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patient care</subject><subject>Patient Safety</subject><subject>Quality assessment</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Safety</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Systems design</subject><subject>Workloads</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk11v0zAUhiMEYmPwDxBYQkJw0RJ_xIm5QKqqjlaatGmduLVOHLvNlMbFTgq94L_jtNnUoF2gXCTxed7Xx8fnRNFbHI8xTfGXe9u6Gqrx1tZ6HGMiBMueRedYUDLiJKbPT77Polfe38dxQjPOX0ZnhMc8TVN2Hv2Z1Gi2g6qFprQ1sgY1a41mxmjV-O533m6gRpegGus8grpAM7eytd2UKsRrNNdQNWs0BacP0ZtgpOsGLcHoZo9uXFCWSvuvaIKWe9_oTQAUutW7Uv96Hb0wUHn9pn9fRHeXs7vpfHR1_X0xnVyNFBekGamCgcIMp5iAIIapItdAMNUmBpExHtNCM5MlBUug4CZPwABjBaXAdZ4KehG9P9puK-tlXzgvMc_SjGCRkEAsjkRh4V5uXbkBt5cWSnlYsG4lwYW8Ky0zTIIswYpQxYSKhcCcZ7likHY1zYPXt363Nt_oQoVqOKgGpsNIXa7lyu4kY5xT0iXzqTdw9merfSM3pVe6qqDWtj3kLWgseMoD-uEf9OnT9dQKwgHK2tiwr-pM5SRUlSch8ThQ4yeo8BQ6XHboMlOG9YHg80AQmEb_blbQei8Xy9v_Z69_DNmPJ-z60GDeVm3XoX4IsiOonPXeafNYZBzLbkgeqiG7IZH9kATZu9MLehQ9TAX9C0OaC_w</recordid><startdate>20150612</startdate><enddate>20150612</enddate><creator>Mao, Xuanyue</creator><creator>Jia, Pengli</creator><creator>Zhang, Longhao</creator><creator>Zhao, Pujing</creator><creator>Chen, Ying</creator><creator>Zhang, Mingming</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150612</creationdate><title>An Evaluation of the Effects of Human Factors and Ergonomics on Health Care and Patient Safety Practices: A Systematic Review</title><author>Mao, Xuanyue ; Jia, Pengli ; Zhang, Longhao ; Zhao, Pujing ; Chen, Ying ; Zhang, Mingming</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-cd4ac141712a92f4cdbea213ef0a984603de4f85d45ad6fb5afa44d33a6eb793</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Decision support systems</topic><topic>Employment</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Ergonomics</topic><topic>Fatigue</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health care reform</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Human behavior</topic><topic>Human factors</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injury prevention</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Job satisfaction</topic><topic>Medical care quality</topic><topic>Medical errors</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Occupational health</topic><topic>Occupational safety</topic><topic>Online databases</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patient care</topic><topic>Patient Safety</topic><topic>Quality assessment</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Safety</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Systems design</topic><topic>Workloads</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mao, Xuanyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jia, Pengli</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Longhao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Pujing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Mingming</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mao, Xuanyue</au><au>Jia, Pengli</au><au>Zhang, Longhao</au><au>Zhao, Pujing</au><au>Chen, Ying</au><au>Zhang, Mingming</au><au>Bammann, Karin</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An Evaluation of the Effects of Human Factors and Ergonomics on Health Care and Patient Safety Practices: A Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2015-06-12</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>10</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>e0129948</spage><epage>e0129948</epage><pages>e0129948-e0129948</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>From the viewpoint of human factors and ergonomics (HFE), errors often occur because of the mismatch between the system, technique and characteristics of the human body. HFE is a scientific discipline concerned with understanding interactions between human behavior, system design and safety.
To evaluate the effectiveness of HFE interventions in improving health care workers' outcomes and patient safety and to assess the quality of the available evidence.
We searched databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and the CBM (Chinese BioMedical Literature Database), for articles published from 1996 to Mar.2015. The quality assessment tool was based on the risk of bias criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) Group. The interventions of the included studies were categorized into four relevant domains, as defined by the International Ergonomics Association.
For this descriptive study, we identified 8, 949 studies based on our initial search. Finally, 28 studies with 3,227 participants were included. Among the 28 included studies, 20 studies were controlled studies, two of which were randomized controlled trials. The other eight studies were before/after surveys, without controls. Most of the studies were of moderate or low quality. Five broad categories of outcomes were identified in this study: 1) medical errors or patient safety, 2) health care workers' quality of working life (e.g. reduced fatigue, discomfort, workload, pain and injury), 3) user performance (e.g., efficiency or accuracy), 4) health care workers' attitudes towards the interventions(e.g., satisfaction and preference), and 5) economic evaluations.
The results showed that the interventions positively affected the outcomes of health care workers. Few studies considered the financial merits of these interventions. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality. This review highlights the need for scientific and standardized guidelines regarding how HFE should be implemented in health care.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>26067774</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0129948</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
ispartof | PloS one, 2015-06, Vol.10 (6), p.e0129948-e0129948 |
issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1687821952 |
source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
subjects | Analysis Clinical outcomes Clinical trials Decision support systems Employment Engineering Ergonomics Fatigue Health care Health care reform Hospitals Human behavior Human factors Humans Injury prevention Intervention Job satisfaction Medical care quality Medical errors Medical personnel Medicine Occupational health Occupational safety Online databases Pain Patient care Patient Safety Quality assessment Quality control Quality of Health Care Researchers Safety Studies Systematic review Systems design Workloads |
title | An Evaluation of the Effects of Human Factors and Ergonomics on Health Care and Patient Safety Practices: A Systematic Review |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T11%3A40%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20Evaluation%20of%20the%20Effects%20of%20Human%20Factors%20and%20Ergonomics%20on%20Health%20Care%20and%20Patient%20Safety%20Practices:%20A%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Mao,%20Xuanyue&rft.date=2015-06-12&rft.volume=10&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=e0129948&rft.epage=e0129948&rft.pages=e0129948-e0129948&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0129948&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA417656770%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1687821952&rft_id=info:pmid/26067774&rft_galeid=A417656770&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_81287851c23c49c0991668bc4a76777b&rfr_iscdi=true |