De la mutualisation des comités de retour d’expérience (Crex) à l’audit des pratiques cliniques

The Incident Feedback Committee (IFC): A Useful Tool to Investigate Errors in Clinical Research

In clinical practice, an objective of safety management is to identify preventable causes of adverse events to avoid the incidents from recurring. Likewise, in the field of clinical research adequate methods to investigate incidents that impair the quality of a clinical trial are needed. Understanding the causes of errors and undesirable incidents can help guarantee participant safety, improve the practices of research coordinators, investigators, and clinical research assistants and help to minimize research costs. Here, we present the main features of our Incident Feedback Committees (IFC) in clinical research, with outcomes over 5 years. Methods: The IFC has adapted the ALARM and ORION post-event methods with investigations focused on ‘the incidents’ occurring during research studies. It sought the root causes contributing to these incidents and proposed corrective actions. Results: Since our IFC was set up in 2015 it has examined 52 incidents from nine studies. The most frequent causes mainly concerned the working environment (54%). Most incidents had two or more causes. Some corrective actions were planned for ongoing or future studies. Conclusion: IFCs provide a useful and much-appreciated method of analysing incidents in the performance of clinical research. A multicentre study is needed to evaluate the effect of IFCs on the quality of an establishment’s clinical research, at the individual level (patient safety) and also at the system level (changes in the organization of tasks).

Experience Feedback Committee: a management tool to improve patient safety in mental health

BACKGROUND

A management tool, called the Experience Feedback Committee, has been applied for patient safety and successfully used in medical departments. The purpose of this study was to analyse the functioning of an Experience Feedback Committee in a psychiatric department and to explore its contribution to the particular issues of patient safety in mental health.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive study based on all the written documents produced by the Experience Feedback Committee between March 2010 and January 2013. The study was conducted in Grenoble University Hospital in France. We analysed all reported incidents, reports of meetings and event analysis reports. Adverse events were classified according to the Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety.

RESULTS

A total of 30 meetings were attended by 22 professionals including seven physicians and 12 paramedical practitioners. We identified 475 incidents reported to the Experience Feedback Committee. Most of them (92 %) had no medical consequence for the patient. Eleven incidents were investigated with an analysis method inspired by civil aviation security systems. Twenty-one corrective actions were set up, including eight responses to the specific problems of a mental health unit, such as training to respond to situations of violence or management of suicide attempts.

CONCLUSIONS

The Experience Feedback Committee makes it possible to involve mental healthcare professionals directly in safety management. This tool seems appropriate to manage specific patient safety issues in mental health.

[FMEA applied to the radiotherapy patient care process]

PURPOSE

Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA), is a risk analysis method used at the Radiotherapy Department of Institute Sainte-Catherine as part of a strategy seeking to continuously improve the quality and security of treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The method comprises several steps: definition of main processes; for each of them, description for every step of prescription, treatment preparation, treatment application; identification of the possible risks, their consequences, their origins; research of existing safety elements which may avoid these risks; grading of risks to assign a criticality score resulting in a numerical organisation of the risks. Finally, the impact of proposed corrective actions was then estimated by a new grading round.

RESULTS

For each process studied, a detailed map of the risks was obtained, facilitating the identification of priority actions to be undertaken. For example, we obtain five steps in patient treatment planning with an unacceptable level of risk, 62 a level of moderate risk and 31 an acceptable level of risk.

CONCLUSION

The FMEA method, used in the industrial domain and applied here to health care, is an effective tool for the management of risks in patient care. However, the time and training requirements necessary to implement this method should not be underestimated.