In preparing medical-device incident reports, attention to detail, staff cooperation,
and follow-ups are key.
Eager to better manage their medico-legal risks, many hospitals
routinely require a formal investigation whenever malfunctioning medical equipment and
devices are involved in adverse incidents.
This strikes some as needless extra work, but it isnt, experts assure.
Adverse events provide a unique opportunity to examine entire systems and make
adjustments that, ideally, will prevent a repeat of the incident in the future, says
Marvin Shepherd, PE (safety), FACCE, with Devteq Consulting in Walnut Creek, Calif.
Izabella Gieras, president of the American College of Clinical Engineering, agrees and
adds that such investigations not only help shield against liability but also contribute
to improved quality of care.
Triage System
What qualifies as an incident requiring investigation could be anything that deviates from
the intended plan of operationat least it is at each of the two William Beaumont
Hospital campuses in Michigan, where Beaumont Services Co LLC provides clinical and
biomedical engineering support.
We initiate a probe whenever a medical device malfunctions or simply doesnt
perform according to manufacturer specifications and results inor had the potential
to result inpatient injury or illness, says Gieras, manager of Beaumont
Services clinical engineering department in the city of Royal Oak.
The majority of incidents typically investigated by Gieras and her department involve
failures of catheters, syringes, and other everyday products. But problems also come up
with big-ticket items, and thats where things get complicated.
We have a triage system in place to help us properly allocate investigative
resources in response, she says.
The departments seven-tiered triage methodology categorizes incidents from mild
to severe (the latter being those that result in injury or the initiation of special
action), Gieras says.
Aided or not by triage, adverse-event investigators need to guard against failure to
explore all possible angles. Shepherd says its tempting to prematurely conclude a
probe report with no problem found after a cursory examination finds the
equipment or device in good working order.
The mistake here is to not recognize that the device is actually just one piece
of a five-component system that delivers a clinical benefit, Shepherd says.
The other components are the operator, the facility, the patient, and the
environmentany one or a combination of those might be the cause of the adverse
event. They, too, have to be considered during the investigation.
Of course, even when all angles are taken into account, an event postmortem will only
turn out well if good information is readily available during the fact-finding process.
Investigations can be hampered when information needed isnt available up
front, Gieras says. For example, the longer it takes to collect input from the
people involved in the incident, the cloudier their memory of it becomes.
The End of Universal Adverse Event
Reporting?
Providing a secure, electronic way to report and share medical-device problems,
the Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun) may eventually eliminate the current mandatory
universal user-facility reporting of adverse events concerning medical devices. Launched in 2002 by the Food and Drug
Administrations Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), the MedSun pilot
program allows select participating facilities to use a Web-based data-entry system to
report serious medical-device problems; close calls and other safety concerns also can be
reportedon a voluntary basis. Device error information reported to MedSun is used to
help the FDA, device manufacturers, and clinical facilities address safety concerns.
The Safe Medical Device Act of 1990 (SMDA) requires all US
health care facilities to report medical-device problems that cause serious illness,
injury, or death via a MedWatch 3500A form. Out of 40,000 clinical sites in the
country that were affected by SMDA (including hospitals, nursing homes, and other health
care facilities), we were receiving about 3,000 reports per year, says Marilyn
Flack, MedSun project officer. It didnt seem we were in touch with the
problems in the clinical community. We wanted to see if we would obtain better reports if
we worked more intensively with a small group of facilities.
So far, MedSun has been successful in gathering more useful
data from the clinical community than that generally obtained from non-MedSun facilities,
according to Flack.
In a few years, MedSun may replace the current mandatory
universal user-facility reporting system, Flack says, adding that non-MedSun sites will
still be encouraged to report medical device adverse events on a voluntary basis through
the MedWatch reporting program.
The 350 health care facilities participating in MedSun commit
to reporting for a 12-month period and designate at least two MedSun representatives, one
of which must be from biomedical or clinical engineering. Both MedSun representatives
receive special incident-reporting training.
Reported problems are shared, without facility
identification, with the rest of the MedSun health care network via a monthly newsletter
and with the general public via the searchable Manufacturer User Facility and Distributor
Experience (MAUDE) database (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/mdr).
Those interested in participating in MedSun, which will
periodically replenish its sample, should contact Tina Powell, MedSun project director, at
(301) 588-0177 or powell@codares.com. |
Working Relationships
As a rule of thumb, investigations that proceed smoothly and end propitiously require the
cooperation of staff outside the biomedical department. That includes nursing, other
clinical specialists, and even housekeepinganybody who might have had knowledge of
the circumstances involved in or leading up to the adverse event.
However, if a staffer suspects that your investigation has a hidden agenda to assign
blame and bring about disciplinary action, he may hold back and offer little information
of value. Where criminality is not an issue, investigations have to be perceived by
everybody as nonthreatening activities, Shepherd says. Disciplinary action
arising from an investigation only has to occur once and, from that time forward, no
future investigation will ever have voluntary cooperation.
Shepherd contends that it is wise to establish good relations with nurses and other
personnel before starting an investigation. Part of that exercise should involve you
explaining in a friendly, sympathetic manner how things will proceed and what they need to
do to help you.
In particular, be sure to meet with the hospitals risk manager. His interest in
the investigation is to ensure that you conduct it in accordance with the hospitals
policies, procedures, and protocols. However, Shepherd says, recognize that some risk
managers are averse to allowing the biomedical or clinical engineering department to take
the lead in an incident probe.
Not infrequently, an incident investigation will need to be conducted by a neutral
third party. For example, if your equipment maintenance is contracted to an outside
service company, that provider may want to avoid conflict-of-interest charges by foregoing
a probe of its own and instead bringing in an independent investigator. (An independent
investigation is advisable, too, for avoiding appearances of anything untoward in
situations where serious injury or death occurred and equipment maintenance is an in-house
responsibility, Shepherd hints.)
Investigative Reporting Tips
To ensure that you conduct a thorough incident investigation, remember the
following points1: Establish when the
event occurred and which devices and/or accessories were involved. (Be sure to note the
brand, model, and serial or lot number of each; you may have to dig around in trash
receptacles to retrieve discarded packaging if the device or accessory is a consumable.)
Make a record of the positions in which the device or
equipment controls were set at the time of the event. (Photographing the controls is an
easy way to document that, as well as to visually capture the condition of the equipment.)
For safetys sake, remember to sequester the
faulty device or equipment.
Obtain as detailed an account as possible of what
transpired. For that to happen, you must identify witnesses or affected parties and
interview them. In the course of your interviews, try to elicit insights with regard to
the factors that played a role in triggering the event. Also, collect contact information
to go along with the names of interviewees so that you can easily reach them later should
you have follow-up questions.
To preclude a repeat of an adverse event, strive for a
mix of short- and long-term solutions. Develop a list of individuals or entities
(departments, subsidiaries, organizations, agencies, business units, etc) to whom or to
which solution-implementation tasks should be delegated. RS
Reference
1. Patail B. Taking a proactive role in adverse event investigations. Biomed Instrum
Technol. 2005; MarchApril;39(2);147150. |
Follow-Up a Must
Bryanne M. Patail, BS, MLS, FACCE, biomedical engineer with the Department of Veterans
Affairs, National Center for Patient Safety, in Ann Arbor, Mich, believes that the work of
the investigator does not end when the inquiry closes.
The outcome of all investigative work should be an action plan to provide both
short- and long-term remedies that prevent a repeat of the incident that triggered the
investigation in the first place, he says.
However, be sure not to miss the mark by allowing finished reports to languish on the
desks of recipients.
Youve got to follow through on your recommendations and work to see to it
that the right resources will be brought into play for purposes of implementation,
Patail says.
Patail says you can promote adoption of your recommendations if you conduct some or all
of the investigation with the help of a multidisciplinary team, one that includes members
from fields that routinely make use of the equipment or device at the heart of the
inquiry. Its easier to obtain user buy-in to the recommendations that
way, he says.
Among the recipients of your investigatory report should be the equipment or device
manufacturer.
Some problems can only be remedied by a redesign of the product, Patail
says. Sharing your findings with the manufacturer helps them know what needs to be
changed and how.
However, dont expect manufacturers to respond with changes to the equipment
youre using at the moment. The changes theyll makeassuming they accept
your findingswill more likely show up in next-generation models. Says Patail,
Theyre probably not going to expend resources to retool current and older
models, the exception being if the problem is serious enough that lives are endangered and
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering ordering the product off the
market.
A good investigatory practice entails consulting various publicly accessible databases
operated by the FDA, Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations,
and other entities that keep tabs on adverse events nationwide. You can use these
databases to see whether the equipment or device under your scrutiny has a checkered past
and produced similar woes at other institutions. Patail says this can also help you become
proactive in your thinking about adverse events.
Perhaps the most proactive step you can take is to share your database-developed
insights among your hospitals purchasing decision-makers so that they can be steered
toward equipment and devices with reputations for the safest, most reliable operation.
Prevent poorly engineered products from ever reaching your institution, and
youll be conducting far fewer incident investigations andby
extensionwriting up far fewer investigatory reports, Patail says. That,
in and of itself, is a worthy goal because if youre having to write fewer reports,
its evidence that youve done your job well and are contributing in a very
positive way to improved patient safety and lowered medico-legal risk. 24x7
Rich Smith is a contributing writer for 24x7.