An NTSB for Health Care - Learning From Innovation: Debate and Innovate or Capitulate

Texas Medical Institute of Technology, Austin, Texas 78722, USA.
Journal of Patient Safety (Impact Factor: 0.88). 03/2012; 8(1):3-14. DOI: 10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182446c51
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Economic and medical risks threaten the national security of America. The spiraling costs of United States' avoidable healthcare harm and waste far exceed those of any other nation. This 2-part paper, written by a group of aviators, is a national call to action to adopt readily available and transferable safety innovations we have already paid for that have made the airline industry one of the safest in the world. This first part supports the debate for a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for health care, and the second supports more cross-over adoption by hospitals of methods pioneered in aviation.
A review of aviation and healthcare leadership best practices and technologies was undertaken through literature review, reporting body research, and interviews of experts in the field of aviation principles applied to medicine. An aviation cross-over inventory and consensus process led to a call for action to address the current crisis of healthcare waste and harm.
The NTSB, an independent agency established by the United States Congress, was developed to investigate all significant transportation accidents to prevent recurrence. Certain NTSB publications known as "Blue Cover Reports" used by pilots and airlines to drive safety provide a model that could be emulated for hospital accidents.
An NTSB-type organization for health care could greatly improve healthcare safety at low cost and great benefit. A "Red Cover Report" for health care could save lives, save money, and bring value to communities. A call to action is made in this first paper to debate this opportunity for an NTSB for health care. A second follow-on paper is a call to action of healthcare suppliers, providers, and purchasers to reinvigorate their adoption of aviation best practices as the market transitions from a fragmented provider-volume-centered to an integrated patient-value-centered world.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Identify clinical opportunities to intervene to prevent a malpractice event and determine the proportion of malpractice claims potentially preventable by clinical decision support (CDS). Materials and Methods: Cross-sectional review of closed malpractice claims over seven years from one malpractice insurance company and seven hospitals in the Boston area. For each event, clinical opportunities to intervene to avert the malpractice event and the presence or absence of CDS that might have a role in preventing the event, were assigned by a panel of expert raters. Compensation paid out to resolve a claim (indemnity), was associated with each CDS type. Results: Of the 477 closed malpractice cases, 359 (75.3%) were categorized as substantiated and 195 (54%) had at least one opportunity to intervene. Common opportunities to intervene related to performance of procedure, diagnosis, and fall prevention. We identified at least one CDS type for 63% of substantiated claims. The 41 CDS types identified included clinically significant test result alerting, diagnostic decision support and electronic tracking of instruments. Cases with at least one associated intervention accounted for $40.3 million (58.9%) of indemnity. Discussion: CDS systems and other forms of health information technology (HIT) are expected to improve quality of care, but their potential to mitigate risk had not previously been quantified. Our results suggest that, in addition to their known benefits for quality and safety, CDS systems within HIT have a potential role in decreasing malpractice payments. Conclusion: More than half of malpractice events and over $40 million of indemnity were potentially preventable with CDS.
    Applied Clinical Informatics 01/2014; 5(3):746-56. DOI:10.4338/ACI-2014-02-RA-0018 · 0.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drs. Meldrum and de Ziegler contrast medicine with the ultra-safe industry of aviation. Analogous to the "right patient, right side, and right organ" procedures already instituted widely throughout medicine, they emphasize the extreme importance and methods for identification and tracking of specimens and recipients for assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures. One of the authors describes his experience with a formal "ISO" accreditation process that standardizes most aspects of risk and safety management. Because risk and safety management has yet to be commonly extended into physicians' offices and that is where ART procedures are usually recommended and carried out, detailed suggestions are offered regarding ways to reduce risk and maximize safety in that environment. Finally, a suggestion is made for establishment of a Clinical Safety Board for ART so adverse events are reported and investigated, promoting educative efforts and preventive strategies to enhance future patient safety.
    Fertility and sterility 11/2013; 100(6). DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.10.003 · 4.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicine and aviation have a striking number of similarities. Both are led by highly-trained individuals performing complex tasks that are critical to outcomes. They also integrate the efforts of other professionals to assure that the flight, procedures, or processes are completed successfully. Also in common, is the potential for errors to have catastrophic and even life-threatening consequences. Both aviation and medicine have responded to this complex operating environment by building safety programs. Unfortunately, those in medicine have not been optimal in reducing significant adverse outcomes, including deaths. It has been suggested that given the parallels, that aviation safety programs might be adapted to clinical medicine. One such measure would the formation of a Clinical Safety Board (CSB) modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Such a board would collect data across the nation and determine root causes of errors. They may then provide recommendations to professional societies and regulatory agencies for consideration for implementation. Such programs would be dependent on accurate and thorough reporting. Indemnification, similar to that enacted by the federal government for aviation, would be critical. In the end, a CSB should empower better patient care with reduced liability to the providers and programs.
    Fertility and sterility 12/2013; 100(6):1518-23. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.10.033 · 4.30 Impact Factor