Process support for risk mitigation: a case study of variability and resilience in vascular surgery
ObjectiveTo inform the design of IT support, the authors explored the characteristics and sources of process variability in a surgical care process that transcends multiple institutions and professional boundaries.SettingA case study of the care process in the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm surveillance...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMJ quality & safety 2011-08, Vol.20 (8), p.672-679 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 679 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 672 |
container_title | BMJ quality & safety |
container_volume | 20 |
creator | Brattheim, Berit Faxvaag, Arild Seim, Andreas |
description | ObjectiveTo inform the design of IT support, the authors explored the characteristics and sources of process variability in a surgical care process that transcends multiple institutions and professional boundaries.SettingA case study of the care process in the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm surveillance programme of three hospitals in Norway.DesignObservational study of encounters between patients and surgeons accompanied by semistructured interviews of patients and key health personnel.ResultsFour process variety dimensions were identified. The captured process variations were further classified into intended and unintended variations according to the cause of the variations. Our main findings, however, suggest that the care process is best understood as systematised analysis and mitigation of risk. Even if major variations accommodated for the flexibility needed to achieve particular clinical aims and/or to satisfy patient preferences, other variations reflected healthcare actors' responses to risks arising from a lack of resilience in the existing system. On this basis, the authors outlined suggestions for a resilience-based approach by including awareness in workflow as well as feedback loops for adaptive learning. The authors suggest that IT process support should be designed to prevent process breakdowns with patient dropouts as well as to sustain risk-mitigating performance.ConclusionProcess variation was in part induced by systemised risk mitigation. IT-based process support for monitoring processes such as that studied here should aim to ensure resilience and further mitigate risk to enhance patient safety. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045062 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3142343</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>878819350</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b501t-ef26383c76d8b7bcc1687a95df7ede4dcb0259230b3f2276b1a307a5521e781f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EolXpD-CCLHHgQlp_xLHDAakKUCqtCgfgajmOs3ibxFuPU7H_Hi8pK9oTvtijeeadGb8IvaTkjFJenbfj5hbOGMkxKQWp2BN0zEhZFqJk_OnhTcUROgXYkHx4XdeEP0dHjHImKqGOkf0ag3UAGObtNsSE-xBx9HCDR5_82iQfpnfYYGvAYUhzt8Ohx3cmetP6wacdNlOHo4McuMk67KecBTsPJmbNuHZx9wI9680A7vT-PkHfP3381nwuVl8ur5qLVdEKQlPhelZxxa2sOtXK1lpaKWlq0fXSda7sbEuYqBknLe8Zk1VLDSfSCMGok4r2_AS9X3S3czu6zropRTPobfSjiTsdjNcPM5P_qdfhTnOav6zkWeDNvUAMt7ODpEcP1g2DmVyYQSupFK25IJl8_YjchDlOeTtN5Z4iNRWZogtlYwCIrj_MQonem6j_mKj3JurFxFzz6t8lDhV_LctAsQAekvt1yJt4oyvJpdDXPxr9YdWo1fWl0E3m3y587vUf_X8DpaK3Ug</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1778810915</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Process support for risk mitigation: a case study of variability and resilience in vascular surgery</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>BMJ Journals - NESLi2</source><creator>Brattheim, Berit ; Faxvaag, Arild ; Seim, Andreas</creator><creatorcontrib>Brattheim, Berit ; Faxvaag, Arild ; Seim, Andreas</creatorcontrib><description>ObjectiveTo inform the design of IT support, the authors explored the characteristics and sources of process variability in a surgical care process that transcends multiple institutions and professional boundaries.SettingA case study of the care process in the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm surveillance programme of three hospitals in Norway.DesignObservational study of encounters between patients and surgeons accompanied by semistructured interviews of patients and key health personnel.ResultsFour process variety dimensions were identified. The captured process variations were further classified into intended and unintended variations according to the cause of the variations. Our main findings, however, suggest that the care process is best understood as systematised analysis and mitigation of risk. Even if major variations accommodated for the flexibility needed to achieve particular clinical aims and/or to satisfy patient preferences, other variations reflected healthcare actors' responses to risks arising from a lack of resilience in the existing system. On this basis, the authors outlined suggestions for a resilience-based approach by including awareness in workflow as well as feedback loops for adaptive learning. The authors suggest that IT process support should be designed to prevent process breakdowns with patient dropouts as well as to sustain risk-mitigating performance.ConclusionProcess variation was in part induced by systemised risk mitigation. IT-based process support for monitoring processes such as that studied here should aim to ensure resilience and further mitigate risk to enhance patient safety.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-5415</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-5423</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045062</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21325658</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - therapy ; Aortic aneurysms ; Case studies ; Coronary vessels ; Health administration ; healthcare quality improvement ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Information Services - organization & administration ; information technology ; Interviews ; Medical personnel ; Norway ; Observational studies ; Original Research ; Outpatient care facilities ; patient safety ; Patient Satisfaction ; Patients ; Process variation ; Quality of Health Care ; risk management ; Safety Management - organization & administration ; Sentinel Surveillance ; Surgeons ; Surveillance ; Time Factors ; Treatment Outcome ; Vascular surgery ; Vascular Surgical Procedures - organization & administration ; Workflow</subject><ispartof>BMJ quality & safety, 2011-08, Vol.20 (8), p.672-679</ispartof><rights>2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>Copyright: 2011 (c) 2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</rights><rights>2011, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b501t-ef26383c76d8b7bcc1687a95df7ede4dcb0259230b3f2276b1a307a5521e781f3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/20/8/672.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/20/8/672.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>114,115,230,314,780,784,885,3194,23569,27922,27923,77370,77401</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21325658$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brattheim, Berit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faxvaag, Arild</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seim, Andreas</creatorcontrib><title>Process support for risk mitigation: a case study of variability and resilience in vascular surgery</title><title>BMJ quality & safety</title><addtitle>BMJ Qual Saf</addtitle><description>ObjectiveTo inform the design of IT support, the authors explored the characteristics and sources of process variability in a surgical care process that transcends multiple institutions and professional boundaries.SettingA case study of the care process in the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm surveillance programme of three hospitals in Norway.DesignObservational study of encounters between patients and surgeons accompanied by semistructured interviews of patients and key health personnel.ResultsFour process variety dimensions were identified. The captured process variations were further classified into intended and unintended variations according to the cause of the variations. Our main findings, however, suggest that the care process is best understood as systematised analysis and mitigation of risk. Even if major variations accommodated for the flexibility needed to achieve particular clinical aims and/or to satisfy patient preferences, other variations reflected healthcare actors' responses to risks arising from a lack of resilience in the existing system. On this basis, the authors outlined suggestions for a resilience-based approach by including awareness in workflow as well as feedback loops for adaptive learning. The authors suggest that IT process support should be designed to prevent process breakdowns with patient dropouts as well as to sustain risk-mitigating performance.ConclusionProcess variation was in part induced by systemised risk mitigation. IT-based process support for monitoring processes such as that studied here should aim to ensure resilience and further mitigate risk to enhance patient safety.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - therapy</subject><subject>Aortic aneurysms</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Coronary vessels</subject><subject>Health administration</subject><subject>healthcare quality improvement</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information Services - organization & administration</subject><subject>information technology</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Norway</subject><subject>Observational studies</subject><subject>Original Research</subject><subject>Outpatient care facilities</subject><subject>patient safety</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Process variation</subject><subject>Quality of Health Care</subject><subject>risk management</subject><subject>Safety Management - organization & administration</subject><subject>Sentinel Surveillance</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Surveillance</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Vascular surgery</subject><subject>Vascular Surgical Procedures - organization & administration</subject><subject>Workflow</subject><issn>2044-5415</issn><issn>2044-5423</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>ACMMV</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkU1v1DAQhi0EolXpD-CCLHHgQlp_xLHDAakKUCqtCgfgajmOs3ibxFuPU7H_Hi8pK9oTvtijeeadGb8IvaTkjFJenbfj5hbOGMkxKQWp2BN0zEhZFqJk_OnhTcUROgXYkHx4XdeEP0dHjHImKqGOkf0ag3UAGObtNsSE-xBx9HCDR5_82iQfpnfYYGvAYUhzt8Ohx3cmetP6wacdNlOHo4McuMk67KecBTsPJmbNuHZx9wI9680A7vT-PkHfP3381nwuVl8ur5qLVdEKQlPhelZxxa2sOtXK1lpaKWlq0fXSda7sbEuYqBknLe8Zk1VLDSfSCMGok4r2_AS9X3S3czu6zropRTPobfSjiTsdjNcPM5P_qdfhTnOav6zkWeDNvUAMt7ODpEcP1g2DmVyYQSupFK25IJl8_YjchDlOeTtN5Z4iNRWZogtlYwCIrj_MQonem6j_mKj3JurFxFzz6t8lDhV_LctAsQAekvt1yJt4oyvJpdDXPxr9YdWo1fWl0E3m3y587vUf_X8DpaK3Ug</recordid><startdate>20110801</startdate><enddate>20110801</enddate><creator>Brattheim, Berit</creator><creator>Faxvaag, Arild</creator><creator>Seim, Andreas</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><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>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110801</creationdate><title>Process support for risk mitigation: a case study of variability and resilience in vascular surgery</title><author>Brattheim, Berit ; Faxvaag, Arild ; Seim, Andreas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b501t-ef26383c76d8b7bcc1687a95df7ede4dcb0259230b3f2276b1a307a5521e781f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - therapy</topic><topic>Aortic aneurysms</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Coronary vessels</topic><topic>Health administration</topic><topic>healthcare quality improvement</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information Services - organization & administration</topic><topic>information technology</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Norway</topic><topic>Observational studies</topic><topic>Original Research</topic><topic>Outpatient care facilities</topic><topic>patient safety</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Process variation</topic><topic>Quality of Health Care</topic><topic>risk management</topic><topic>Safety Management - organization & administration</topic><topic>Sentinel Surveillance</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Surveillance</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Vascular surgery</topic><topic>Vascular Surgical Procedures - organization & administration</topic><topic>Workflow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brattheim, Berit</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Faxvaag, Arild</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seim, Andreas</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ quality & safety</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brattheim, Berit</au><au>Faxvaag, Arild</au><au>Seim, Andreas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Process support for risk mitigation: a case study of variability and resilience in vascular surgery</atitle><jtitle>BMJ quality & safety</jtitle><addtitle>BMJ Qual Saf</addtitle><date>2011-08-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>672</spage><epage>679</epage><pages>672-679</pages><issn>2044-5415</issn><eissn>2044-5423</eissn><abstract>ObjectiveTo inform the design of IT support, the authors explored the characteristics and sources of process variability in a surgical care process that transcends multiple institutions and professional boundaries.SettingA case study of the care process in the Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm surveillance programme of three hospitals in Norway.DesignObservational study of encounters between patients and surgeons accompanied by semistructured interviews of patients and key health personnel.ResultsFour process variety dimensions were identified. The captured process variations were further classified into intended and unintended variations according to the cause of the variations. Our main findings, however, suggest that the care process is best understood as systematised analysis and mitigation of risk. Even if major variations accommodated for the flexibility needed to achieve particular clinical aims and/or to satisfy patient preferences, other variations reflected healthcare actors' responses to risks arising from a lack of resilience in the existing system. On this basis, the authors outlined suggestions for a resilience-based approach by including awareness in workflow as well as feedback loops for adaptive learning. The authors suggest that IT process support should be designed to prevent process breakdowns with patient dropouts as well as to sustain risk-mitigating performance.ConclusionProcess variation was in part induced by systemised risk mitigation. IT-based process support for monitoring processes such as that studied here should aim to ensure resilience and further mitigate risk to enhance patient safety.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>21325658</pmid><doi>10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045062</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2044-5415 |
ispartof | BMJ quality & safety, 2011-08, Vol.20 (8), p.672-679 |
issn | 2044-5415 2044-5423 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3142343 |
source | MEDLINE; BMJ Journals - NESLi2 |
subjects | Abdomen Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - surgery Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - therapy Aortic aneurysms Case studies Coronary vessels Health administration healthcare quality improvement Hospitals Humans Information Services - organization & administration information technology Interviews Medical personnel Norway Observational studies Original Research Outpatient care facilities patient safety Patient Satisfaction Patients Process variation Quality of Health Care risk management Safety Management - organization & administration Sentinel Surveillance Surgeons Surveillance Time Factors Treatment Outcome Vascular surgery Vascular Surgical Procedures - organization & administration Workflow |
title | Process support for risk mitigation: a case study of variability and resilience in vascular surgery |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T06%3A39%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Process%20support%20for%20risk%20mitigation:%20a%20case%20study%20of%20variability%20and%20resilience%20in%20vascular%20surgery&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20quality%20&%20safety&rft.au=Brattheim,%20Berit&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=672&rft.epage=679&rft.pages=672-679&rft.issn=2044-5415&rft.eissn=2044-5423&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjqs.2010.045062&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E878819350%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1778810915&rft_id=info:pmid/21325658&rfr_iscdi=true |