The biopsychosociotechnical model: a systems-based framework for human-centered health improvement

The biopsychosocial model is among the most influential frameworks for human-centered health improvement but has faced significant criticism- both conceptual and pragmatic. This paper extends and fundamentally re-structures the biopsychosocial model by combining it with sociotechnical systems theory. The resulting biopsychosociotechnical model addresses key critiques of the biopsychosocial model, providing a more "practical theory" for human-centered health improvement. It depicts the determinants of health as complex adaptive system of systems; includes the the artificial world (technology); and provides a roadmap for systems improvement by: differentiating between "health status" and "health and needs assessment", [promoting problem framing]; explaining health as an emergent property of the biopsychosociotechnical context [imposing a systems orientation]; focusing on "interventions" vs. "treatments" to modify the biopsychosociotechnical determinants of health, [expanding the solution space]; calling for a participatory design process [supporting systems awareness and goal-orientation]; and including intervention management to support the full lifecycle of health improvement.

Rebalancing risk management--part 1: The Process for Active Risk Control (PARC)

Risk assessment, by itself, does nothing to reduce risk or improve safety. It can only change outcomes by informing the design and management of effective risk control interventions. But current practice in healthcare risk management suffers from an almost complete lack of support for risk control. This first installment of a 2-part series on rebalancing risk management describes a new framework to guide risk control practice: The Process for Active Risk Control.

Patient safety: this is public health

Avoidable patient harm is a major public health concern, and may already have surpassed heart disease as the leading cause of death in the United States. While the public health community has contributed much to one aspect of patient harm prevention, infection control, the tools and techniques of public health have far more to offer to the emerging field of patient safety science. Patient safety practice has become increasingly professionalized in recent years, but specialist degree programs in the field remain scarce. Healthcare organizations should consider graduate training in public health as an avenue for investing in the professional development of patient safety practitioners, and schools and programs of public health should support further research and teaching to support patient safety improvement.

Translating Evidence into Practice Using a Systems Engineering Framework for Infection Prevention

The current infection prevention era is defined by the rise of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Efforts to combat these and other emerging pathogens have resulted in rapid and ongoing evolution of the contemporary infection prevention environment. Currently, HAIs impose a significant burden on the US healthcare system. Recent analysis of National Healthcare Safety Network data from the early 2000s suggests that at least 1.7 million HAIs occur yearly in US hospitals, associated with at least 99,000 deaths. These numbers have likely increased over the past decade and suggest that HAIs are among the leading causes of death in the United States.

The Active Risk Control (ARC) toolkit: a new approach to designing risk control interventions

Current practice in healthcare risk management is supported by many tools for risk assessment (understanding problems), but none for risk control (solving problems).

THE RESULTS

a failure to improve safety, and a waste of the investment made in risk assessment. The Active Risk Control (ARC) Toolkit, available for free, fills this void with a systematic, structured approach to risk control.

A comparison of the methods used to support risk identification for patient safety in one UK NHS foundation trust

In healthcare, various methods are available to support risk identification in risk management process. However, there is no clear evidence on their contribution to risk identification. In this study, different methods used to support risk identification were therefore analysed to compare their contribution to overall risk identification. The study was conducted at Cambridge University Hospitals Foundation Trust, UK. Three main methods were selected to compare their support in risk identification: incident reports through their Risk Management Information System, risk registers through their Risk Registers system, and safety walkabouts through their internal patient safety assessment process. Where possible, simple comparison tests were run between the different methods of identifying risks as well as by the type of risks identified. It was found that each method has contributed to the risk identification by adding different sets of risk sources despite some overlaps. However, they produced discrete assessments from different aspects and none of them, on its own, could produce adequate results for effective risk identification. In any healthcare setting, having a system to put all risk information in one picture would help maximise the contribution of each method within the scope risk management process. Future studies may benefit from broader use of multiple and system-based risk identification approaches, and coding methods for more powerful analytical test.

Rebalancing risk management--Part 2: The Active Risk Control (ARC) Toolkit

The adoption of systems-focused risk assessment techniques has not led to measurable improvement in the rate of patient harm. Why? In part, because these tools focus solely on understanding problems and provide no direct support for designing and managing solutions (ie, risk control). This second installment of a 2-part series on rebalancing risk management describes a structured approach to bridging this gap: The Active Risk Control (ARC) Toolkit. A pilot study is presented to show how the ARC Toolkit can improve the quality of risk management practice.