Cited by 372Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsHealthcare Quality and Management

A human factors engineering paradigm for patient safety: designing to support the performance of the healthcare professional: Figure 1

Open access
Karsh, B-T, Holden, R J, Alper, S J, Or, C K L·2006·Quality in Health Care

Abstract

The goal of improving patient safety has led to a number of paradigms for directing improvement efforts. The main paradigms to date have focused on reducing injuries, reducing errors, or improving evidence based practice. In this paper a human factors engineering paradigm is proposed that focuses on designing systems to improve the performance of healthcare professionals and to reduce hazards. Both goals are necessary, but neither is sufficient to improve safety. We suggest that the road to patient and employee safety runs through the healthcare professional who delivers care. To that end, several arguments are provided to show that designing healthcare delivery systems to support healthcare professional performance and hazard reduction should yield significant patient safety benefits. The concepts of human performance and hazard reduction are explained.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/qshc.2005.015974

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • It was unclear from the definitions whether usefulness referred to enhanced performance process or enhanced performance outcomes.

    “It was unclear from either definitions whether usefulness referred to enhanced performance process (e.g., fewer steps, more information for decision making) or enhanced performance outcomes (e.g., faster care, more accurate decisions) [116].”
  • Suboptimal design and implementation of BCMAs can facilitate new medication administration hazards, lead clinicians to deviate from required safe-use protocols, reduce the technology's safety benefits, and enhance the probability of medication errors.

    “These data show that as with all health care technologies, 24-29 suboptimal design and implementation of BCMAs can facilitate new medication administration hazards, 13-15,30-32 lead clinicians to deviate from required safe-use protocols, reduce the technology's safety benefits, 12-15 and enhance the probability of medication errors.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Sanders MS, McCormick EJ. Human factors engineering and design, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
  2. Hagan P, Montgomery JF, O'Reilly JT, eds. Accident prevention manual for business and industry: administration and programs. Chicago: National Safety Council, 2001.
  3. Katz D, Kahn RL. Organisations and the system concept, The social psychology of organisations. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978.
  4. Carayon P, Alvarado C, Brennan P, et al. Work system and patient safety. Proceedings of Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management- VII 2003:583-8.
  5. Karsh B, Brown R. The impact of organizational hierarchies on the design and analysis of medical error research. Proceedings of Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management-VIII 2005:293-8.
  6. Klein G, Ross KG, Moon BM, et al. Macrocognition. IEEE Intelligent Systems 2003;18:81-5.
  7. Holden R, Karsh B. Applying a theoretical framework to the research and design of medical error reporting systems. Proceedings of the International Conference on Healthcare Systems Ergonomics and Patient Safety 2005:131-4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karsh, B.-T., Holden, R. J., Alper, S. J., & Or, C. K. L.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
  • Karsh, B-T
  • Or, C K L
Venue
Quality in Health Care
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-12
Volume
15
Issue
suppl 1
Pages
i59-i65
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-3901
OpenAlex
W2165855085
Cited by
372
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS013610, 1 R01 HS013610)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
patient safety, human factors engineering, hazard mitigation, health system design, human performance, staff safety, health care delivery systems
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Ergonomics, Organizational Innovation, Professional-Patient Relations, Systems Analysis, United States, Patient Satisfaction, Total Quality Management, Safety Management, Medical Errors

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