Biomedical subjects

Rick A Iedema

Publications and source records attributed to Rick A Iedema.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Experiences of health professionals who conducted root cause analyses after undergoing a safety improvement programme.

BACKGROUND: Research on root cause analysis (RCA), a pivotal component of many patient safety improvement programmes, is limited. OBJECTIVE: To study a cohort of health professionals who conducted RCAs after completing the NSW Safety Improvement Program (SIP). HYPOTHESIS: Participants in RCAs would: (1) differ in demographic profile from non-participants, (2) encounter problems conducting RCAs as a result of insufficient system support, (3) encounter more problems if they had conducted fewer RCAs and (4) have positive attitudes regarding RCA and safety. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Anonymous questionnaire survey of 252 health professionals, drawn from a larger sample, who attended 2-day SIP courses across New South Wales, Australia. OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic variables, experiences conducting RCAs, attitudes and safety skills acquired. RESULTS: No demographic variables differentiated RCA participants from non-participants. The difficulties experienced while conducting RCAs were lack of time (75.0%), resources (45.0%) and feedback (38.3%), and difficulties with colleagues (44.5%), RCA teams (34.2%), other professions (26.9%) and management (16.7%). Respondents reported benefits from RCAs, including improved patient safety (87.9%) and communication about patient care (79.8%). SIP courses had given participants skills to conduct RCAs (92.8%) and improve their safety practices (79.6%). Benefits from the SIP were thought to justify the investment by New South Wales Health (74.6%) and committing staff resources (72.6%). Most (84.8%) of the participants wanted additional RCA training. CONCLUSIONS: RCA participants reported improved skills and commitment to safety, but greater support from the workplace and health system are necessary to maintain momentum.

Health Personnel↗

PubMed2006

Does restructuring hospitals result in greater efficiency?--An empirical test using diachronic data.

Hospitals are being restructured more frequently. Increased cost efficiency is the usual justification given for such changes. All 20 major teaching hospitals in Australia's two most populous states were investigated by classifying each over a 5-6 year period in terms of their cost efficiency (average cost per case weighted by Australian diagnosis-related group [AN-DRG] data and adjusted for inflation) and structure, categorized as traditional-professional (TP), clinical-divisional (CD), or clinical-institute (CI). In all, 12 hospitals changed structure during the study period. There was slight evidence that CD structures were more efficient than TP structures but this was not supported by other evidence. There were no significant differences in efficiency in the first or second years following changes from either TP to CD or TP to CI structures. All four hospitals changing from CD to CI structure became significantly less efficient. This may be due to frequency rather than type of change as they were the only hospitals that implemented two structural changes. Hospitals that changed or did not change structure were similar in efficiency at the beginning and at the end of the study period, in overall efficiency during the period, and in trends toward efficiency over time. The findings challenge those who advocate restructuring hospitals on the grounds of improving cost efficiency.

Efficiency, Organizational↗

PubMed2005

Giving voice to health professionals' attitudes about their clinical service structures in theoretical context.

Within the context of structural theories this paper examines what health professionals say about their clinical service structures. We firstly trace various conceptual perspectives on clinical service structures, discussing multiple theoretical axes. These theories question whether clinical service structures represent either superficial or more profound changes in hospitals. We secondly explore which view is supported though a content analysis of the free text responses of 111 health professionals (44 doctors, 45 nurses and 22 allied health practitioners) about their clinical service structures in a questionnaire survey in two large hospitals that had implemented clinical service structures three years previously. Commentaries unfavourable toward clinical service structures were made by 47.7% of staff, favourable by 24.3%, mixed (both favourable and unfavourable) by 17.1% and non-evaluative statements were made by 10.8%. The most frequent criticisms were inefficient organisation of change (27%), poor management (24.3%), lack of cooperation between staff (15.9%) and failure to empower health practitioners (13.5%). All professions made more negative than positive evaluations of their clinical service structures but the ratio was highest for doctors and lowest for allied health. Ranking of nurses' and allied health staffs' specific evaluations were similar but both differed significantly from doctors'. Unfavourable or negative comments predominated, and change appears more superficial and less profound than advocates of structural contributions hope. Four types of belief systems about clinical service structures are apparent. Some study participants are disposed toward the status quo; others toward restructuring; yet others are team oriented; and a final group is tribally oriented. The implication of this paper for managers is that more work is needed if clinical service structures are to realise the promise of more multi-disciplinarity and less fragmentation across professional groups. For scholars, the implication is that marrying different theoretical frames with empirical data can serve to produce fresh perspectives and perhaps new insights.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗