Evaluation of Time- and Cost-Saving Modifications of HFMEA

Abstract

: On the basis of the results of this case study, it seems feasible to develop less time- and cost-consuming versions of HFMEA, which would increase even more the added value of prospective risk analysis tools for health care organizations.

A comparison of two prospective risk analysis methods: Traditional FMEA and a modified healthcare FMEA

“…12 The issue of traditional FMEA scoring method is that various sets of S, O, and D may produce an identical value of RPN; however the risk implication may be different. [15][16][17][18][19] However, the TG-100 report has developed scales for the S, O, and D indices that are specifically tied to radiotherapy outcomes and observations. 10 The TG-100 FMEA more specifically describes the terminology relating to severity.…”

“…First, the categories for frequency of occurrence are changed into easily defined categories in order to prevent team members from placing their own interpretation on the categories. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] For instance, categories such as "less than once a year," "yearly," "monthly," "quarterly," and "weekly" are used instead of HFMEA™ categories such as "remote," "uncommon," "occasional," and "frequent." Second, the numbers in the HFMEA Hazard Scoring Matrix™ are replaced by arbitrary risk scale such as very low, low, high, and very high with accompanying red or green box, while the HFMEA™ originally used a numerical classification with more discrete levels that allows for more subtle differentiation between risks.…”

“…Both FMEA and m-HFMEA include five steps: (1) define the topic, (2) assemble the team, (3) develop a process map for the process consecutively numbering each step and substep of that process, (4) conduct the risk analysis, and (5) develop actions and outcomes. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] In m-HFMEA, the fourth step has four substeps: (4a) identifying failure modes, (4b) identifying the causes of these failure modes, (4c) scoring each failure mode using the risk inventory matrix, and (4d) conducting a Decision Tree™ analysis. Each failure mode was identified in terms of severity (S) and frequency (F).…”

“…13,14 However, the main constraints often reported when conducting an HFMEA are the significant time commitment and resources needed. [15][16][17][18] The risk analysis has been streamlined further into a faster version of HFMEA™, called scenario analysis of failure modes effects and risks (SAFER), which is promoted in the Netherlands. [16][17][18] In France, a systematic approach called global risk analysis (GRA) adapted to health care process has been developed following a systemic evaluation of prospective risk analysis using HFMEA™.…”

A influência de programas e metodologias da qualidade aplicadas na área da saúde.

“…Como destaque, o hospital E utiliza uma plataforma digital, incentivando seus trabalhadores a se manterem atualizados, o hospital B adota todos os procedimentos estabelecidos pelo órgão acreditador e o hospital D iniciou, em 2016, treinamentos em Seis Sigma, buscando identificar e mitigar riscos. Estas ações favorecem uma relação positiva com a qualidade, destacada na literatura (SHAW et al, 2014;GOK e SEZEN, 2013;GREENFIELD, PAWSEY e BRAITHWAITE, 2011;VLAYEN, 2011;SPEROFF et al, 2010 A necessidade de redução de custos, eliminação de desperdícios, melhoria no atendimento e redução da burocracia, buscando agregar valor aos processos estabelecidos, é contornada com o uso de outros procedimentos e metodologias da qualidade. A principal justificativa dos hospitais pesquisados é que este método, apesar de ser muito utilizado na indústria manufatureira, quando aplicado em um setor majoritariamente de serviços, suas ferramentas são de difícil uso.…”