Righting Wrong Site Surgery
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
A balance theory of job design for stress reduction
Smith, M. J., & Sainfort, P. C. (1989) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/0169-8141(89)90051-6 · Cited by 488 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model
Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A. P., Alvarado, C. J., Smith, M., & Flatley Brennan, P. (2006) · Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1136/qshc.2005.015842 · Cited by 1,795 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Carayon, P., Schultz, K., & Hundt, A. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Corresponding author
- Carayon, Pascale
- ORCID
- 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