Write your message
Volume 7, Issue 3 (Iranian Journal of Ergonomics 2019)                   Iran J Ergon 2019, 7(3): 44-56 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rasouli kahaki Z, Tahernejad S, Rasekh R, Jahangiri M. Evaluation of Human Reliability by Standardized Plant Analysis Risk HRA (SPAR-H) method in the Dialysis Process in Ibn Sina Hospital, Shiraz. Iran J Ergon 2019; 7 (3) :44-56
URL: http://journal.iehfs.ir/article-1-610-en.html
1- Department of Ergonomics, Faculty of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
2- Shiraz Ibn Sina Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
3- Department of Occupational Health Engineering, Faculty of Health, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
Full-Text [PDF 711 kb]   (9631 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (10466 Views)

To reduce and control the human error in nursing duties in the dialysis department, control measures should be done such as increasing the number of personnel, changing the time shift of nurses, and training, preparing and revising the instructions.


Extended Abstract:   (968 Views)
Introduction

Human errors in dialysis care can cause injury and death. One of the basic steps to increase reliability in this critical process is to analyze the error and identify the weaknesses of doing this process [4].
One of the most sensitive, yet susceptible, activities to human error in hospitals is the dialysis process. Due to its complexity on one hand the increase in number of patients needing this process on the other hand, the occurrence of errors in this process increases and, depending on the sensitivity of the subject, leads to adverse consequences including patient death. One of the quantitative methods of estimating the probability of human error is the assessment of human reliability by the Standardized Plant Analysis Risk Human Reliability (SPAR-H) method. Limited studies have been performed using this method in health care units, including studies of human errors in cardiac care and radiology units [11, 12].
This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate human error using the SPAR-H method in a dialysis process in one of Shiraz hospitals.


 

Materials and Methods

The present study is a cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study that was performed to identify and evaluate the probability of human error in the dialysis process of one of the hospitals by SPSR-H method. The studied hospital consisted of six dialysis units, each with 2 dialysis machines (ability to accommodate 1 patient), with 2 nurses in each ward participating in the dialysis process. Nurses' work experience ranged from 3 to 12 years. The data collection was also carried out with the help of dialysis process, interviews with the nurses of the unit, review of documents, procedures and working procedures.

The stages of implementation of the study are as follows.
1. Analyzing job tasks and determining their type in the dialysis process
2. Quantifying human error by SPAR-H method:
     2.1. Determine the type of base event
     2.2. Identification and determination of factors affecting human fault occurrence (PSF) in diagnostic and functional tasks
 

Table 1. How to evaluate the factors affecting human error in diagnostic and functional activities

PSF Diagnostic activity Functional activity
PSF level PSF level coefficient PSF level PSF level coefficient
Available time
 
Insufficient time Probability of failure = 1 Insufficient time Probability of failure = 1
Inadequate time (2/3 nominal time) 10 The available time is approximately equal to the time required 10
Nominal time [there is almost enough time to diagnose the problem] 1 Nominal time 1
Extra time (between 1 and 2 times the nominal time and more than 30 minutes) 0.1 Available time equal to or more than 5 times the time required 0.1
Extended time (more than 2 times the nominal time and more than 30 minutes) 0.01 Available time equal to or greater than 50 times the time required 0.01
 
Stress
 
Severe 5 Severe 5
Top 2 Top 2
Nominal 1 Nominal 1
Insufficient information 1 Insufficient information 1
 
Complexity
very complicated 5 very complicated 5
Relatively complex 2 Relatively complex 2
Nominal 1 Nominal 1
Clear diagnosis 0.1
Insufficient information 1 Insufficient information 1
 
Training / Experience
Down 10 Down 3
Nominal 1 Nominal 1
Top 0.5 Top 0.5
Insufficient information 1 Insufficient information 1
 
Instructions
Not available 50 Not available 50
Incomplete 20 Incomplete 20
Existing but weak 5 Existing but weak 5
Nominal 1 Nominal 1
Diagnostic 0.5
اInsufficient Info 1 Insufficient information 1
Ergonomics / human-machine interaction
 
Comfortable 50 Confusing 50
Poor 10 Poor 10
Nominal 1 Nominal 1
Good 0.5 Good 0.5
Insufficient information 1 Insufficient information 1
 
Proportional to Duty
 
Unsuitable Probability of failure = 1 Unsuitable Probability of failure = 1
Destructive proportion 5 Destructive proportion 5
Nominal 1 Nominal 1
Insufficient information 1 Insufficient information 1
Working process Poor 2 Poor 5
Nominal 1 Nominal 1
Good 0.8 Good 0.5
Insufficient information 1 Insufficient information 1

The probability stage of human error was calculated for each of the job tasks according to the levels selected for the PSFs using Equations 1 and 2.
Relation # 1 (human error probability for diagnostic activity): HEPD = 0.01×∏PSF
Relation # 2 (human error probability calculation for functional activity): HEPA = 0.001×∏PSF   
In the above relationships, the basic human error probability [BHEP] values for diagnostic and functional activities are 0.01 and 0.001, respectively [13]. In tasks with at least 3 PSFs [negative PSFs] having a coefficient greater than 1, the probability of human error was calculated using Equation 3, taking into account the adjustment coefficient.

Table 2. Determining dependency level and how to calculate the probability of human error in dialysis nursing job tasks

Row Staff Interval Place of duty Symptoms [extra or non-extra] Dependency level Relationship of human error probability calculation
1  
 
 
 
 
The same
 
 
In terms of time close
 
 
The same
Non-extra sign Complete Probability of failure equal to 1
2 Extra Complete
3  
Different
Non-extra sign  

 
4 Extra (( 1+Pw/od) )/2
5  
In terms of time with distance
 
 
The same
Non-extra sign
6 Extra
7  
Different
Non-extra sign
8 Extra (( 1+6 ×Pw/od))/7
9  
 
 
 
 
 
Different
 
In terms of time close
 
 
The same
Non-extra sign  
 
 
10 Extra ((1+19 ×Pw/od))/20
11  
Different
Non-extra sign
12 Extra
13  
 
In terms of time with distance
 
 
The same
Non-extra sign (( 1+6 ×Pw/od))/7  
 
 
14 Extra Low
15  
Different
Non-extra sign Low
16 Extra Low
17 Zero Probability of failure equal to PW/OD


 

Results

The present study showed that the probability of human error in the duties of a dialysis nurse is in the range of 0.02-0.44 (except for devices related to disorder), which is related to sub-duty preparing patient as lowest rate and sub-duty of the pump set-off as highest error rate (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Hierarchical Job Task Analysis for Dialysis Nurse

1. Pre-dialysis nursing care
     1-1. Weight control
     1-2. Symptoms control
     1-3. Determination of heparin
     1-4. Filter Selection [coefficient]
     1-5. Determine the type of dialysis solution and its amount
     1-6. Client preparation and location of access
2. Preparation of hemodialysis machine and patient connection to the device
     2-1. Preparing and stamping the device
          2-1-1. Adjust the pump pump according to the overweight and hypertension
          2-1-2. Adjust the concentration and temperature of the dialysis solution on the machine
     2-2. Priming the arterial set
     2-3. Testing the device
     2-4. Connect the dialysis machine to the patient
3. Nursing care during dialysis
     3-1. Control vital signs every hour
     3-2. Control of intravenous and arterial pressure of the device
     3-3. Calculation of Liquid Harvesting Rate [TMP]
     3-4. Straight control of bleeding and ...
     3-5. Heparin injection
     3-6. Blood and Drug Injection in ...
     3-7. Take the necessary measures in case of device failure ...
4. Post-dialysis nursing care
     4-1. Weight loss control
     4-2. Control Vital Signs
     4-3. Control of the place of perforation of vessels from …
     4-4. Disassemble the device correctly

 

Table 4. Results of quantifying the probability of human errors in the dialysis process

Job duty Sub-Job duty PSFC HEPD HEPA PW/OD Final HEP
Diagnostic Functional
Pre-dialysis nursing care
 
 
 
Weight control 5 1 0.05 0.001 0.051 0.051
Symptom control 5 1 0.05 0.001 0.051 0.051
Determination of heparin 50 2 0.335 0.002 0.337 0.337
Filter selection (coefficient) 50 2 0.335 0.002 0.337 0.337
Determine the type of dialysis solution and its amount 50 1 0.335 0.001 0.336 0.336
Client preparation and location of access -- 20 -- 0.02 -- 0.02
Preparation of hemodialysis machine and attachment of the device to the patient Adjust the pump speed according to overweight and ... 50 20 0.35 0.02 0.355 0.442
Dialysis solution concentration and temperature 50 1 0.335 0.001 0.336 0.336
Priming the arterial set 50 1 0.335 0.001 0.336 0.336
Test the device 10 20 0.1 0.02 0.12 0.12
Connect the dialysis machine to the patient 20 20 0.2 0.02 0.22 0.331
Nursing Care During Dialysis Control vital signs every hour 5 1 0.05 0.001 0.05 0.05
Intravenous and arterial pressure control device 5 1 0.05 0.001 0.05 0.05
Calculation of Liquid Harvesting Rate [TMP] 10 1 0.1. 0.001 0.1 0.1
Bleeding control in terms of bleeding and ... 5 1 ۵/0 0.001 0.05 0.05
Heparin injection 10 1 0.1 0.001 0.101 0.101
Blood transfusions and medications 1 20 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03
Take necessary action in case of device failure 100 5 1 1.005 1 1
Nursing Care Post-Dialysis Weight loss control 5 1 0.05 0.001 0.051 0.05
Controlling Vital Signs 5 1 0.5 0.001 0.051 0.05
Control the location of the perforation of the vessels ... 5 1 0.05 0.001 0.051 0.05
Disassemble the device correctly 20 20 0.2 0.02 0.22 0.331


 

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to estimate the probability of human error in the dialysis process by nurses using SPAR-H method.
The present study showed that the probability of human error among the dialysis unit nursing tasks was in the range of 0.020 to 0.442 (excluding device disorders) which were related to the main tasks of pre-dialysis nursing care and Hemodialysis device preparation, respectively. As shown in Table 5, the most likely human error in the sub-pump adjustment sub-task with a probability of 0.442 followed by heparin quantification and filter selection with a probability of 0.337 and sub-dialysis task, Solution concentration and temperature adjustment and priming were obtained with a probability of 0.336. The least human error probability was related to client preparation task and access location with probability error of 0.020.


 

Conclusion

To reduce and control the human error in nursing duties in the dialysis department, control measures should be done such as increasing the number of personnel, changing the time shift of nurses, and training, preparing and revising the instructions.


 

Acknowledgements

The authors of the article consider it necessary to extend their sincere appreciation for the cooperation of the hospital staff, especially the nursing staff of the dialysis unit.

 

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declared no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
 

Type of Study: Research | Subject: Other Cases
Received: 2019/02/11 | Accepted: 2019/12/22 | ePublished: 2020/01/12

References
1. James JT. A new, evidence-based estimate of patient harms associated with hospital care. Journal of Patient Safety. 2013; 9(3):122-8. [DOI:10.1097/PTS.0b013e3182948a69] [PMID]
2. Mazloumi A, Kermani A, NaslSeraji J, GhasemZadeh F. Identification and evaluation of human errors of physicians at emergency ward of an educational hospital in Semnan city using SHERPA technique. Occupational Medicine Quarterly Journal. 2013; 5(3):67-78. Persian. [Article] [Google Scholar]
3. Halbach J, Sullivan L. Medical errors and patient safety: A curriculumguide for teaching medical students and family practice residents. City ?: Med-EdPORTAL Publications; 2005. [DOI:10.15766/mep_2374-8265.101]
4. Ahmadi SM, Jalali A, Jalali R. Factors associated with the choice of peritoneal dialysis in Iran: Qualitative study. Open access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2018; 6(7):1253. [DOI:10.3889/oamjms.2018.255] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Iranian Dialysis Consortium, Link: http://www.icdgroup.org/
6. Ridgway M. Optimizing our PM programs. Biomedical instrumentation & technology. 2009; 43(3):244-54. [DOI:10.2345/0899-8205-43.3.244] [PMID]
7. Boring RL, Forester JA, Bye A, Dang VN, Lois E. Lessons learned on benchmarking from the international human reliability analysis empirical study. Paper presented in The International Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management Conference; 1 Jun 2010; [Google Scholar]
8. Hollnagel E. Human reliability assessment in context. Nuclear Engineering and Technology. 2005; 37(2):159-66. [Article] [Google Scholar]
9. Sands G, Fallon EF, van der Putten WJ. The utilisation of probabilistic risk assessment in radiation oncology. Procedia Manufacturing. 2015; 3:250-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.138]
10. Blackman HS. Human reliability and safety analysis data handbook. Wiley; 1994. [Book] [Google Scholar]
11. Gertman D, Blackman H, Marble J, Byers J, Smith C. The SPAR-H human reliability analysis method. Washington D.C.: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission; 2005. [Article] [Google Scholar]
12. Nazari T, Rabiee A, Ramezani A. Human Error Probability Quantification using SPAR-H Method: Total Loss of Feedwater case study for VVER-1000. Nuclear Engineering and Design. 2018; 331:295-301. [DOI:10.1016/j.nucengdes.2018.03.006]
13. Jahangiri M, Hoboubi N, Rostamabadi A, Keshavarzi S, Hosseini AA. Human error analysis in a permit to work system: a case study in a chemical plant. Safety and Health at Work. 2016; 7(1):6-11. [DOI:10.1016/j.shaw.2015.06.002] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Mohammadfam IM, Soltanian A, Salavati M, Bashirian S. Assessment of human errors in the nursing profession of intensive cardiac care unit using SPAR-H method. Quarterly Scientific Specialty Occupational Medicine. 2014; 7(1):10-22. [Google Scholar]
15. Pouya AB, Mosavianasl Z, Moradi-Asl E. Analyzing nurses' responsibilities in the neonatal intensive care unit using sherpa and spar-h techniques. Shiraz E-Medical Journal. 2019; 20(6) [Article] [Google Scholar]
16. Tanha F, Mazloumi A, Faraji V, Kazemi Z, Shoghi M. Evaluation of human ‎errors using standardized plant analysis risk human reliability analysis ‎technique among delivery emergency nurses in a hospital affiliated to Tehran ‎University of Medical Sciences. Journal of Hospital. 2015; 14(3):57-66. [Google Scholar]
17. Mitchell RJ, Williamson A, Molesworth B. Application of a human factors classification framework for patient safety to identify precursor and contributing factors to adverse clinical incidents in hospital. Applied Ergonomics. 2016; 52:185-95. [DOI:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.018] [PMID]
18. Kazaoka T, Ohtsuka K, Ueno K, Mori M. Why nurses make medication errors: a simulation study. Nurse Education Today. 2007 May 1;27(4):312-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.nedt.2006.05.011] [PMID]
19. CHoobine AR. Shift problems and approaches. Shiraz: Shiraz University of Medical Sciences; 1986. [Persian]
20. Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Rafferty LA, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP. Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. CRC Press; 2017. [DOI:10.4324/9781351156325]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Iranian Journal of Ergonomics

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb |