A Case Study on Improving Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Services Reliability: By Using Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (PFMEA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In any complex human system, human error is inevitable and shows that can't be eliminated by blaming wrong doers. So with the aim of improving Intensive Care Units (ICU) reliability in hospitals, this research tries to identify and analyze ICU's process failure modes at the point of systematic approach to errors. METHODS: In this descriptive research, data was gathered qualitatively by observations, document reviews, and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with the process owners in two selected ICUs in Tehran in 2014. But, data analysis was quantitative, based on failures' Risk Priority Number (RPN) at the base of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) method used. Besides, some causes of failures were analyzed by qualitative Eindhoven Classification Model (ECM). RESULTS: Through FMEA methodology, 378 potential failure modes from 180 ICU activities in hospital A and 184 potential failures from 99 ICU activities in hospital B were identified and evaluated. Then with 90% reliability (RPN≥100), totally 18 failures in hospital A and 42 ones in hospital B were identified as non-acceptable risks and then their causes were analyzed by ECM. CONCLUSIONS: Applying of modified PFMEA for improving two selected ICUs' processes reliability in two different kinds of hospitals shows that this method empowers staff to identify, evaluate, prioritize and analyze all potential failure modes and also make them eager to identify their causes, recommend corrective actions and even participate in improving process without feeling blamed by top management. Moreover, by combining FMEA and ECM, team members can easily identify failure causes at the point of health care perspectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".