This is a preliminary report of an small interdisciplinary study focusing on the application of self-directed reflective thinking for individuals interested in exploring how to think about mistakes and errors. \marginnoteI am deeply indebted to William Gore PhD, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, University of Washington, Meryl Tsukiji, MA of Collective Concerns who participated in the weekly discussions, and Erik Samuel Eddy who field tested tools in the community and assisted in internet design and editing. Many others have contributed by using our tools either as participants in independent studies or by anonymous reports. Their suggestions have been invaluable. Originally we worked exclusively studying medical errors. These errors can result in significant mortality, morbidity and disability outcomes that are both identifiable and quantifiable. Extensive and expensive administrative, clinical, and research efforts have been applied to efforts to reduce the prevalence and incidence of medical mistakes. These efforts have been applied to hospitals, clinics and large medical groups. However, the overall reduction of error has been disappointing as increasing technical complexity, and frequent modifications in medical practices and changing administrative priorities complicate initiatives to produce desired improvement.
What can an individual, small group, a patient or a care giver, do to reduce the chance of serious medical error often called an adverse event? The focus of this report to facilitate all efforts to deal with medical mistakes and encourage exemplary practices. We concentrated on an individual and small group level because personally, and in our circles of friends and acquaintances many errors and near misses occurred. Emotional immediacy was a strong motivator for us to pursue antecedents and promising remedies. We wrote case reports. We reviewed and searched medical, organizational, anthropological, psychiatric and psychoanalytic, and philosophy of science literature\marginnoteThis article is written in Tufte Handout style. Unnumbered notes in the margin are margin notes, those with numbers are sidenotes and are repeated in the References. URL’s in either place can be clicked in Adobe Reader, free from Adobe Systems for all platforms. You will be taken to the original reference source, plus usually an abstract and often a free full text copy. We sought ideas for developing relatively simple, grounded, practice level solutions. Elderly readers or those with visual handicaps can also click the + icon at the top in the Adobe Reader window to enlarge text while reading on the computer screen.
These were applied in the trenches of medical care. We developed three open source tools to support reflective thinking, personal resilience, and the advancement of knowledge. The tools increased personal and organizational awareness. We welcome comment and suggestions for further development. We seek more examples of personal and small team experience. Our goal is to improve simple, easily applied methods for evaluating and comprehending how to best reduce errors for a health care team or an individual in practice.
Although we have expanded our efforts to Human Error in general, we are in need of more variety in collected examples. Other areas such as aviation provide useful comparisons and differences. We found what we had discovered, while incomplete, had broader applications in daily living. Embedded resistances in individuals and systems are difficult to reveal and change, more data expands our points of view.
Preliminary efforts and literature review led to the creation of Narrative Descriptions. The user was asked to describe an event, and associated emotions. Then a discussion was added with three points of view, personal, interpersonal-communicative, and organizational. Originally these were for discussion within our group. Later we suggested a written narrative focus be added with consideration of probable uses: editing and re-reading, a naive reader, a teaching file, a categorization or an ontology. These could be characterized as goals or WorkPoints.
Our beginning trials with the Narrative Discussions revealed a complexity requiring a more complete examination of events. We discovered John Flanagan’s early work on the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) (Flanagan 1953), His goal was to develop scientific basis for identifying critical factors to account for WWII student pilots who failed in training. Previously reasons given by examiners were often cliches or lacked depth. This large careful study with well defined goals led to many other applications both in aviation and later in manufacturing, business, management and nursing (Fivars 1980). (PubMed alone has 2543 articles and 231 review articles on CIT in Nursing.)
Early attempts to cope with medical error tended to focus on a model of Blame and Train however, safety studies from other fields suggested there was greater complexity. To a psychiatrist it appeared there was little attempt to search for problems outside of awareness, due to unconscious, denied or unobserved detail. We combined the approach of examining specific events (CIT) with pushing the user to consider emotional reactions and states in our Complex Context Critical Incident Report (CCCIR). In this approach the user applies multiple points of view to include the nature of communication, or lack thereof, and systemic/organizational fa