scholarly journals A comparative risk assessment of dialysis care processes in the home and hospital care contexts

Author(s):  
Peter Chemweno ◽  
Liliane Pintelon

Abstract Dialysis processes within the home care context is associated with risk factors which are not very prominent in the hospital context. This includes risk factors such as unanticipated device malfunction, or erroneous operation of the equipment, which exposes the patient to injury while undergoing dialysis. Importantly, the mentioned risk factors are further attributed to technical aspects such as sub-optimal equipment maintenance or following improper clinical procedures when administering care to the patient. Hence, it is important to follow a methodological approach to identify and assess hazards embedded within the dialysis treatment process, and on this basis, formulate effective strategies to mitigate their negative consequences on patient safety. This paper presents a comparative risk assessment for in-hospital versus in-home dialysis care. For the two cases, the risk assessment considers expertise of care givers involved in administering dialysis. The findings show that performing risk assessment for hospital environment, is more structured owing to expertise of clinicians and care givers responsible for administering dialysis. However, assessing risks for the home-care environment is more challenging owing to absence of domain knowledge, hence a survey approach to structure the risk assessment process is necessary. Moreover, risks in the home care context is influenced by logistical aspects, and lack of domain knowledge for maintaining dialysis equipment. Overall, insights from the comparative studies yields important learning points expected to improve dialysis care as more healthcare providers transfer care to the home environment.

The Lancet ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 381 ◽  
pp. S47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Farshad Farzadfar ◽  
Goodarz Danaei ◽  
Hengameh Namdaritabar ◽  
Julie Knoll Rajaratnam ◽  
Jacob R Marcus ◽  
...  

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. e1002164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goodarz Danaei ◽  
Kathryn G. Andrews ◽  
Christopher R. Sudfeld ◽  
Günther Fink ◽  
Dana Charles McCoy ◽  
...  

The Lancet ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 366 (9499) ◽  
pp. 1784-1793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goodarz Danaei ◽  
Stephen Vander Hoorn ◽  
Alan D Lopez ◽  
Christopher JL Murray ◽  
Majid Ezzati

Author(s):  
Jeffrey G. Twombly ◽  
Eric D. Cutright ◽  
Kenneth K. Jackson

The US rail industry is charged with developing and implementing interoperable Positive Train Control (PTC) on many lines by 2015. It will be a challenge to assure the overall design safety of this next generation of train control, and there are significant issues with accommodating varying operating methods and different territories. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will also require the railroads to meet the processor-based train control standards in FRA Rule 49CFR236 Sub-Part H (hereinafter FRA Rule 236H) [1], including the requirement for a comparative risk assessment, preferably quantitative. This paper provides an overview of the safety assurance process mandated by the FRA and discusses a cost-effective approach to performing risk assessments on large PTC systems. The paper also recognizes the current FRA and Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) effort in developing the new PTC-specific FRA Rule 49CFR236 Sub-Part I to meet the recent PTC legislation requirements. The FRA Rule 236H requires railroads to use a comprehensive approach to generating a risk based, safety case for all PTC-type systems. Following the FRA Rule 236H guidelines helps ensure that all aspects of system safety are addressed, and that a safety conclusion can be successfully drawn from the documented evidence. The FRA requirements for building a safety case are based on time-tested traditional safety analyses which are enhanced to address system-wide safety. A critical new requirement of this standard is the development of a quantitative comparative risk assessment for the system as the formal mechanism for summarizing the safety argument. The FRA Rule 236H requires the comparison of the risk of the new PTC system with the historical risk of the existing system, which will be extremely challenging for the nationwide implementation of interoperable PTC where differing operating methods may be employed on multiple railroads with differing levels of appropriate historical data to reference. These factors must be carefully considered in the risk assessment approach and in the formulation of the overall system safety case argument for this Federally-mandated implementation. The risk assessment process described in this paper is uniquely different from existing quantitative safety assessment approaches that have primarily concentrated on producing a Mean Time Between Hazardous Events (MTBHE) for the various train control components in the system. In contrast to an MTBHE method, FRA rule-compliant comparative risk assessment approaches must evaluate PTC safety in the context of the overall comprehensive system operation, considering the effects of human errors, operating rules/procedures, training practices, system maintenance, equipment failures including any time/sequence dependencies, and the movement of trains and their exposure to potentially hazardous conditions. These considerations have prompted the development of a comprehensive FRA Rule 236H-compliant risk assessment methodology that goes far beyond traditional safety analyses and is well-suited for the assessment of interoperable PTC systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document