Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

Ashley, Laura; Armitage, Gerry

doi:10.1097/pts.0b013e3181fc98d7

Cited by 61 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of those that were, severity ratings were different between the two groups. Similarly, discrepancies in HFMEA scores were found by Ashley and Armitage [19] who found differences in severity ratings determined by consensus between team members and those determined by averaging team members’ individual scores.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Potts

Anderson

Colligan

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundProspective Hazard Analysis techniques such as Healthcare Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (HFMEA) and Structured What If Technique (SWIFT) have the potential to increase safety by identifying risks before an adverse event occurs. Published accounts of their application in healthcare have identified benefits, but the reliability of some methods has been found to be low. The aim of this study was to examine the validity of SWIFT and HFMEA by comparing their outputs in the process of risk assessment, and comparing the results with risks identified by retrospective methods.MethodsThe setting was a community-based anticoagulation clinic, in which risk assessment activities had been previously performed and were available. A SWIFT and an HFMEA workshop were conducted consecutively on the same day by experienced experts. Participants were a mixture of pharmacists, administrative staff and software developers. Both methods produced lists of risks scored according to the method’s procedure. Participants’ views about the value of the workshops were elicited with a questionnaire.ResultsSWIFT identified 61 risks and HFMEA identified 72 risks. For both methods less than half the hazards were identified by the other method. There was also little overlap between the results of the workshops and risks identified by prior root cause analysis, staff interviews or clinical governance board discussions. Participants’ feedback indicated that the workshops were viewed as useful.ConclusionsAlthough there was limited overlap, both methods raised important hazards. Scoping the problem area had a considerable influence on the outputs. The opportunity for teams to discuss their work from a risk perspective is valuable, but these methods cannot be relied upon in isolation to provide a comprehensive description. Multiple methods for identifying hazards should be used and data from different sources should be integrated to give a comprehensive view of risk in a system.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Potts

Anderson

Colligan

et al. 2014

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, FMEA was limited in the identification of external and environmental risks, as the failure modes were only identified according to the process steps shown in the system diagram provided, and no identification of external risks was allowed. As with the previous results, we recommended that the outputs from FMEA should not be used in isolation (Ashley and Armitage, 2010; Franklin et al, 2012; N. Shebl et al, 2012; Shebl et al, 2009), but should be treated valuable to support the overall risk identification practice.…”

Section: Capturing Requirements For the Proposed Risk Identification mentioning

confidence: 59%

Design for patient safety: a systems-based risk identification framework

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current risk identification practices applied to patient safety in healthcare are insufficient. The situation can be improved, however, by studying systems approaches broadly and successfully utilised in other safety-critical industries, such as aviation and chemical industries. To illustrate this, this paper first investigates current risk identification practices in the healthcare field, and then examines the potential of systems approaches. A systems-based approach, called the Risk Identification Framework (RID Framework), is then developed to enhance improvement in risk identification. Demonstrating the strengths of using multiple inputs and methods, the RID Framework helps to facilitate the proactive identification of new risks. In this study, the potential value of the RID Framework is discussed by examining its application and evaluation, as conducted in a real-world healthcare setting. Both the application and evaluation of the RID Framework indicate positive results, as well as the need for further research. Practitioner Summary: The findings in this study provide insights into how to make a better amalgamation of risk identification inputs to the safer design and more proactive risk management of healthcare delivery systems, which have been an increasing research interest amongst human factor professionals and ergonomists.

show abstract

“…FMEA was conducted in two teams to minimise the disruption to routine dispensing services at the study hospital and was successfully completed by both teams. Most FMEA studies found in the literature proceeded with one team [ 2 , 12 , 19 – 21 , 24 , 27 , 31 , 34 , 36 ]. Shebl et al, [ 15 ] reported a FMEA study conducted using two teams in two settings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to improve medication safety in the dispensing process – a study at a teaching hospital, Sri Lanka

Anjalee

Rutter²,

Samaranayake

2021

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a prospective, team based, structured process used to identify system failures of high risk processes before they occur. Medication dispensing is a risky process that should be analysed for its inherent risks using FMEA. The objective of this study was to identify possible failure modes, their effects, and causes in the dispensing process of a selected tertiary care hospital using FMEA. Methods Two independent teams (Team A and Team B) of pharmacists conducted the FMEA for two months in the Department of Pharmacy of a selected teaching hospital, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Each team had five meetings of two hours each, where the dispensing process and sub processes were mapped, and possible failure modes, their effects, and causes, were identified. A score for potential severity (S), frequency (F) and detectability (D) was assigned for each failure mode. Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) were calculated (RPN=SxFxD), and identified failure modes were prioritised. Results Team A identified 48 failure modes while Team B identified 42. Among all 90 failure modes, 69 were common to both teams. Team A prioritised 36 failure modes, while Team B prioritised 30 failure modes for corrective action using the scores. Both teams identified overcrowded dispensing counters as a cause for 57 failure modes. Redesigning of dispensing tables, dispensing labels, the dispensing and medication re-packing processes, and establishing a patient counseling unit, were the major suggestions for correction. Conclusion FMEA was successfully used to identify and prioritise possible failure modes of the dispensing process through the active involvement of pharmacists.

show abstract

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

Cited by 61 publications

References 30 publications

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques

Design for patient safety: a systems-based risk identification framework

Application of failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to improve medication safety in the dispensing process – a study at a teaching hospital, Sri Lanka

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About