Cited by 45Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHospital Admissions and OutcomesHealthcare Quality and Management

Righting Wrong Site Surgery

Carayon, Pascale, Schultz, Kara, Hundt, Ann Schoofs·2004·The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety

Abstract

Background As defined by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), wrong site surgery includes wrong side or siteof the body, wrong procedure, and wrong-patient surgeries. Although many health care organizations are implementing guidelines and procedures to decrease the occurrence of wrong site surgery, numerous barriers to their effectiveness have been identified. Human factors engineering (hfe) analysis A human factors system analysis can be used to better understand how elements of a work system combine andinteract to contribute to breakdowns in the system. A case study of wrong site surgery in an outpatient setting illustrates how the different work systtem elements can contribute to the occurrence of a wrong site surgery. In analyzing the care process, it is particularly important to identify the transitions of care, which can be sources of patient safety problems when deficits in communication and information transfer occur (for example, miscommunication, information not transmitted on time, wrong information transmitted, misunderstanding of the information transmitted). Recommendations After a wrong site surgery, conduct a root cause analysis that uses the work system model and includes a surgery care process analysis similar to the one described in the case study; collaborate with human factors engineers to learn how to apply the work system model; apply the work system model to process analysis; and optimize work systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1549-3741(04)30046-8

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Processes are very much influenced by work system design.

    “It is also important to understand that processes are very much influenced by work system design.30”

    From Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model (2006) · cites this paper as [30]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carayon, P., Schultz, K., & Hundt, A. S.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Carayon, Pascale
Venue
The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
30
Issue
7
Pages
405-410
ISSN
1549-3741 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3578405
Cited by
45
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • AHRQ (#P20 HS11561-01)
  • AHRQ Institutional Training (#HS000083)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
wrong-site surgery, patient safety, human factors engineering, care transitions, communication breakdown, information transmission, root cause analysis, outpatient surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Humans, Ergonomics, Knee, Male, Surgical Procedures, Operative, Task Performance and Analysis, Medical Errors, Organizational Case Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review