Implementing systems thinking for infection prevention: The cessation of repeated scabies outbreaks in a respiratory care ward

Team experiences of the root cause analysis process after a sentinel event: a qualitative case study

BACKGROUND

Root cause analysis (RCA) is a systematic approach, typically involving several stages, used in healthcare to identify the underlying causes of a medical error or sentinel event. This study focuses on how members of a Norwegian RCA team experience aspects of an RCA process and whether it complies with the Norwegian RCA method.

METHOD

Based on a sentinel event in which a child died unexpectedly during childbirth in a Norwegian hospital in 2021, the following research questions are addressed: 1. What was the RCA team's experience of the RCA process? 2. Was there compliance with the Norwegian RCA method in this case? A case study was chosen out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena and to allow in-depth focus on a case.

RESULTS

The result covered three main themes. The first theme related to the hospital's management system and aspects of the case that made it challenging to follow all recommendations in the Norwegian RCA guidelines. The second theme encompassed external and internal assessment. The RCA team was composed of members with methodological and medical expertise. However, the police's involvement in the case made it complex for the team to carry out the process. The third and final theme covered intrapersonal challenges RCA team members faced. Team members experienced various challenges during the RCA process, including being neutral, dealing with role-related challenges, grappling with ambivalence, and managing the additional time burden and resource constraints. As anticipated in the RCA guidelines, the team's ability to remain neutral was tested.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study can help stakeholders better comprehend how an inter-professional RCA teamwork intervention can affect a healthcare organization and enhance the teamwork experience of healthcare staff while facilitating improvements in work processes and patient safety. Additionally, these results can guide stakeholders in creating, executing, utilizing, and educating others about RCA processes.

Systemic Management of Pandemic Risks in Dental Practice: A Consolidated Framework for COVID-19 Control in Dentistry

Dental teams and their workplaces are among the most exposed to airborne and bloodborne infectious agents, and therefore at the forefront of pandemic-related changes to how dental care is organized and provided to patients. The increasing complexity of guidelines makes is challenging for clinicians to navigate the multitude of COVID-19 guidelines issued by different agencies. A comparative analysis of guidance issued for managing COVID-19 in dental settings leading U.S. agencies was conducted, including documents of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), an agency of the U.S. Secretary of Labor, and of the U.S. Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), an agency of the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services. Details of infection control and other risk mitigation measures were reviewed for consistency, overlaps and similarities, then clustered according to thematic areas covering all domains of managing a dental healthcare setting. The analysis revealed five distinct areas of pandemic control, comprising (1) planning and protocols, (2) patient screening, (3) preparation of facilities, (4) PPE and infection control, and (5) procedures and aerosol control; thereby covering systematically all aspects requiring adaptation in a pandemic context. The "Pandemic-5 Framework for COVID-19 Control in Dentistry" provides an opportunity to simplify comprehensive decision-making from a clinical practitioner perspective. The framework supports a comprehensive systems-driven approach by using dental clinics as a setting to integrate pandemic clinical responses with the implementation of appropriate infection control protocols. Traditionally these two aspects are addressed independently from each other in separate concepts.

Nurses' perceptions of systems thinking and safe nursing care: A cross-sectional study

AIM

To assess nurses' perceptions of systems thinking, safe nursing care and the correlation between them.

BACKGROUND

Systems thinking and safe nursing care are the key elements of quality improvement approaches, such as accreditation and patient safety programmes. However, these two variables have not been well studied in different health care settings.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 300 nurses were selected using the stratified random sampling method. The data were collected using a demographic data form, systems thinking scale and assessment of safe nursing care questionnaire.

RESULTS

The scores of nurses' perceptions of systems thinking (63.25 ± 9.20) and safe nursing care (4.13 ± 0.60) were above average. A positive correlation was found between systems thinking and safe nursing care (r = .66, p < .001), and its dimensions: nursing skills (r = .61, p < .001), psychological needs (r = .56, p < .001), physical needs (r = .51, p < .001) and teamwork (r = .56, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

Regarding the correlation between systems thinking and safe nursing care, nurses and other medical professionals, especially novices, are recommended to strengthen their systems thinking skills to improve the safe nursing care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Nurse managers should deal with organisational condition and factors affecting some poor aspects of systems thinking and safe nursing care. They must lead, support and allocate resources to the foundations of systems thinking to achieve safe nursing care.

A Concept Analysis of Systems Thinking

PURPOSE

This concept analysis, written by the National Quality and Safety Education for Nurses (QSEN) RN-BSN Task Force, defines systems thinking in relation to healthcare delivery.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted using five databases with the keywords "systems thinking" as well as "nursing education," "nursing curriculum," "online," "capstone," "practicum," "RN-BSN/RN to BSN," "healthcare organizations," "hospitals," and "clinical agencies." Only articles that focused on systems thinking in health care were used. The authors identified defining attributes, antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents of systems thinking.

FINDINGS

Systems thinking was defined as a process applied to individuals, teams, and organizations to impact cause and effect where solutions to complex problems are accomplished through collaborative effort according to personal ability with respect to improving components and the greater whole. Four primary attributes characterized systems thinking: dynamic system, holistic perspective, pattern identification, and transformation.

CONCLUSION

Using the platform provided in this concept analysis, interprofessional practice has the ability to embrace planned efforts to improve critically needed quality and safety initiatives across patients' lifespans and all healthcare settings.

Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field

OBJECTIVES

This paper reports on findings from a systematic review designed to investigate the state of systems science research in public health. The objectives were to: (1) explore how systems methodologies are being applied within public health and (2) identify fruitful areas of activity.

DESIGN

A systematic review was conducted from existing literature that draws on or uses systems science (in its various forms) and relates to key public health areas of action and concern, including tobacco, alcohol, obesity and the social determinants of health.

DATA ANALYSIS

117 articles were included in the review. An inductive qualitative content analysis was used for data extraction. The following were systematically extracted from the articles: approach, methodology, transparency, strengths and weaknesses. These were then organised according to theme (ie, commonalities between studies within each category), in order to provide an overview of the state of the field as a whole. The assessment of data quality was intrinsic to the goals of the review itself, and therefore, was carried out as part of the analysis.

RESULTS

4 categories of research were identified from the review, ranging from editorial and commentary pieces to complex system dynamic modelling. Our analysis of each of these categories of research highlighted areas of potential for systems science to strengthen public health efforts, while also revealing a number of limitations in the dynamic systems modelling being carried out in public health.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great deal of interest in how the application of systems concepts and approach might aid public health. Our analysis suggests that soft systems modelling techniques are likely to be the most useful addition to public health, and align well with current debate around knowledge transfer and policy. However, the full range of systems methodologies is yet to be engaged with by public health researchers.