IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v37y2017i3p421-440.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hybrid Methodology for Modeling Risk of Adverse Events in Complex Health‐Care Settings

Author

Listed:
  • Reza Kazemi
  • Ali Mosleh
  • Meghan Dierks

Abstract

In spite of increased attention to quality and efforts to provide safe medical care, adverse events (AEs) are still frequent in clinical practice. Reports from various sources indicate that a substantial number of hospitalized patients suffer treatment‐caused injuries while in the hospital. While risk cannot be entirely eliminated from health‐care activities, an important goal is to develop effective and durable mitigation strategies to render the system “safer.” In order to do this, though, we must develop models that comprehensively and realistically characterize the risk. In the health‐care domain, this can be extremely challenging due to the wide variability in the way that health‐care processes and interventions are executed and also due to the dynamic nature of risk in this particular domain. In this study, we have developed a generic methodology for evaluating dynamic changes in AE risk in acute care hospitals as a function of organizational and nonorganizational factors, using a combination of modeling formalisms. First, a system dynamics (SD) framework is used to demonstrate how organizational‐level and policy‐level contributions to risk evolve over time, and how policies and decisions may affect the general system‐level contribution to AE risk. It also captures the feedback of organizational factors and decisions over time and the nonlinearities in these feedback effects. SD is a popular approach to understanding the behavior of complex social and economic systems. It is a simulation‐based, differential equation modeling tool that is widely used in situations where the formal model is complex and an analytical solution is very difficult to obtain. Second, a Bayesian belief network (BBN) framework is used to represent patient‐level factors and also physician‐level decisions and factors in the management of an individual patient, which contribute to the risk of hospital‐acquired AE. BBNs are networks of probabilities that can capture probabilistic relations between variables and contain historical information about their relationship, and are powerful tools for modeling causes and effects in many domains. The model is intended to support hospital decisions with regard to staffing, length of stay, and investments in safety, which evolve dynamically over time. The methodology has been applied in modeling the two types of common AEs: pressure ulcers and vascular‐catheter‐associated infection, and the models have been validated with eight years of clinical data and use of expert opinion.

Suggested Citation

  • Reza Kazemi & Ali Mosleh & Meghan Dierks, 2017. "A Hybrid Methodology for Modeling Risk of Adverse Events in Complex Health‐Care Settings," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 421-440, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:421-440
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12702
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12702?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell & Linda M. Lakats & Dean M. Murphy & David M. Gaba, 1997. "Anesthesia Patient Risk: A Quantitative Approach to Organizational Factors and Risk Management Options," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 511-523, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sammy Zahran & David Mushinski & Hsueh‐Hsiang Li & Ian Breunig & Sophie Mckee, 2019. "Clinical Capital and the Risk of Maternal Labor and Delivery Complications: Hospital Scheduling, Timing, and Cohort Turnover Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1476-1490, July.
    2. Justin Pence & Zahra Mohaghegh, 2020. "A Discourse on the Incorporation of Organizational Factors into Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Key Questions and Categorical Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(6), pages 1183-1211, June.
    3. Li, Mei & Liu, Zixian & Li, Xiaopeng & Liu, Yiliu, 2019. "Dynamic risk assessment in healthcare based on Bayesian approach," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 327-334.
    4. David M. Vanlandingham & Wesley Hampton & Kimberly M. Thompson & Kamran Badizadegan, 2020. "Modeling Pathology Workload and Complexity to Manage Risks and Improve Patient Quality and Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(2), pages 421-434, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2002. "Finding and Fixing Systems Weaknesses: Probabilistic Methods and Applications of Engineering Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 319-334, April.
    2. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell & Louis Anthony Cox, 2014. "Improving Risk Management: From Lame Excuses to Principled Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1228-1239, July.
    3. Elisabeth Paté‐Cornell, 2012. "On “Black Swans” and “Perfect Storms”: Risk Analysis and Management When Statistics Are Not Enough," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(11), pages 1823-1833, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:37:y:2017:i:3:p:421-440. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.