The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Five System Barriers to Achieving Ultrasafe Health Care
Abstract
Although debate continues over estimates of the amount of preventable medical harm that occurs in health care, there seems to be a consensus that health care is not as safe and reliable as it might be. It is often assumed that copying and adapting the success stories of nonmedical industries, such as civil aviation and nuclear power, will make medicine as safe as these industries. However, the solution is not that simple. This article explains why a benchmarking approach to safety in high-risk industries is needed to help translate lessons so that they are usable and long lasting in health care. The most important difference among industries lies not so much in the pertinent safety toolkit, which is similar for most industries, but in an industry's willingness to abandon historical and cultural precedents and beliefs that are linked to performance and autonomy, in a constant drive toward a culture of safety. Five successive systemic barriers currently prevent health care from becoming an ultrasafe industrial system: the need to limit the discretion of workers, the need to reduce worker autonomy, the need to make the transition from a craftsmanship mindset to that of equivalent actors, the need for system-level (senior leadership) arbitration to optimize safety strategies, and the need for simplification. Finally, health care must overcome 3 unique problems: a wide range of risk among medical specialties, difficulty in defining medical error, and various structural constraints (such as public demand, teaching role, and chronic shortage of staff). Without such a framework to guide development, ongoing efforts to improve safety by adopting the safety strategies of other industries may yield reduced dividends. Rapid progress is possible only if the health care industry is willing to address these structural constraints needed to overcome the 5 barriers to ultrasafe performance.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Incidence of Adverse Drug Events and Potential Adverse Drug Events: Implications for Prevention
Bates, D. W. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530010043033 · Cited by 2,127
Fatigue among Clinicians and the Safety of Patients
Gaba, D. M., & Howard, S. K. (2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa020846 · Cited by 680
Do House Officers Learn From Their Mistakes?
Wu, A. W. (1991) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1991.03460160067031 · Cited by 565
Cited by
Levy, M. M., Dellinger, R. P., Townsend, S. R., Linde-Zwirble, W. T., Marshall, J. C., Bion, J., Schorr, C., Artigas, A., Ramsay, G., Beale, R., et al. (2010) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1738-3 · Cited by 868
Wrong-Side/Wrong-Site, Wrong-Procedure, and Wrong-Patient Adverse Events: Are They Preventable?
Seiden, S. C. (2006) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.141.9.931 · Cited by 283
Vincent, C., & Amalberti, R. (2016) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25559-0 · Cited by 278
Self-citationImplementing multidisciplinary tumor boards in oncology: a narrative review
Mano, M. S., çitaku, F. T., & Barach, P. (2022) · Future Oncology · doi:10.2217/fon-2021-0471 · Cited by 59
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Amalberti, R., Auroy, Y., Berwick, D., & Barach, P.
- Venue
- Annals of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American College of Physicians
- Published
- 2005-05-03
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 756-764
- ISSN
- 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
- 1539-3704
- OpenAlex
- W2152365807
- Cited by
- 599
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 49.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.