Objective To determine the association between poor sleep quality, fatigue, and self-reported safety outcomes among Emergency Medical Services (EMS) workers. Methods We used convenience sampling of EMS agencies and a cross-sectional survey design. We administered the 19-item Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 11-item Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire (CFQ), and 44-item EMS Safety Inventory (EMS-SI) to measure sleep quality, fatigue, and safety outcomes, respectively. We used a consensus process to develop the EMS-SI, which was designed to capture three composite measurements of EMS worker injury, medical errors and adverse events (AE), and safety compromising behaviors. We used hierarchical logistic regression to test the association between poor sleep quality, fatigue, and three composite measures of EMS worker safety outcomes. Results We received 547 surveys from 30 EMS agencies (a 35.6% mean agency response rate). The mean PSQI score exceeded the benchmark for poor sleep (6.9, 95%CI 6.6, 7.2). Greater than half of respondents were classified as fatigued (55%, 95%CI 50.7, 59.3). Eighteen percent of respondents reported an injury (17.8%, 95%CI 13.5, 22.1), forty-one percent a medical error or AE (41.1%, 95%CI 36.8, 45.4), and 89% (95%CI 87, 92) safety compromising behaviors. After controlling for confounding, we identified 1.9 greater odds of injury (95%CI 1.1, 3.3), 2.2 greater odds of medical error or AE (95%CI 1.4, 3.3), and 3.6 greater odds of safety compromising behavior (95%CI 1.5, 8.3) among fatigued respondents versus non-fatigued respondents. Conclusions In this sample of EMS workers, poor sleep quality and fatigue is common. We provide preliminary evidence of an association between sleep quality, fatigue, and safety outcomes.

Background Despite over a decade of efforts to reduce the adverse event rate in healthcare, the rate has remained relatively unchanged. Root cause analysis (RCA) is a process used by hospitals in an attempt to reduce adverse event rates; however, the outputs of this process have not been well studied in healthcare. This study aimed to examine the types of solutions proposed in RCAs over an 8-year period at a major academic medical institution. Methods All state-reportable adverse events were gathered, and those for which an RCA was performed were analysed. A consensus rating process was used to determine a severity rating for each case. A qualitative approach was used to categorise the types of solutions proposed by the RCA team in each case and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results 302 RCAs were reviewed. The most common event types involved a procedure complication, followed by cardiopulmonary arrest, neurological deficit and retained foreign body. In 106 RCAs, solutions were proposed. A large proportion (38.7%) of RCAs with solutions proposed involved a patient death. Of the 731 proposed solutions, the most common solution types were training (20%), process change (19.6%) and policy reinforcement (15.2%). We found that multiple event types were repeated in the study period, despite repeated RCAs. Conclusions This study found that the most commonly proposed solutions were weaker actions, which were less likely to decrease event recurrence. These findings support recent attempts to improve the RCA process and to develop guidance for the creation of effective and sustainable solutions to be used by RCA teams.

BackgroundInterest in human factors has increased across healthcare communities and institutions as the value of human centred design in healthcare becomes increasingly clear. However, as human factors is becoming more prominent, there is growing evidence of confusion about human factors science, both anecdotally and in scientific literature. Some of the misconceptions about human factors may inadvertently create missed opportunities for healthcare improvement.MethodsThe objective of this article is to describe the scientific discipline of human factors and provide common ground for partnerships between healthcare and human factors communities.ResultsThe primary goal of human factors science is to promote efficiency, safety and effectiveness by improving the design of technologies, processes and work systems. As described in this article, human factors also provides insight on when training is likely (or unlikely) to be effective for improving patient safety. Finally, we outline human factors specialty areas that may be particularly relevant for improving healthcare delivery and provide examples to demonstrate their value.ConclusionsThe human factors concepts presented in this article may foster interdisciplinary collaborations to yield new, sustainable solutions for healthcare quality and patient safety.