State of Tennessee vs. RaDonda Vaught

Evaluate the value of health information technology in the prevention and detection of errors, as well as analysis of unintended consequences and human factors through quality improvement strategies.


State of Tennessee vs. RaDonda Vaught: Discovery request response. Available at https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6785652/RaDonda-Vaught-DA-Discovery.pdfLinks to an external site. Note pages 5-6, 50-51.

  1. Apply one of the Quality Improvement Models discussed in the course, or choose an approach from the literature, or the one used in your workplace to analyze the case.
    A. Summarize the case in one paragraph, highlighting the role of HIT.
    B. Describe briefly the model chosen for the analysis.
    I. Provide a rationale for using the selected model over other options.
    C. Follow the model steps and processes to identify the quality, safety, security, privacy, and unintended consequences issues in the case.
    D. List interprofessional team members who may be consulted on this process and their expected role.
  2. Design strategies for your workplace to mitigate the issues identified from the case.
    A. Provide at least one visual of the process and proposed changes (i.e., flow chart, process map, data quality, pareto chart, control chart, data visualization).
    B. Identify changes if needed to policies, EHR, equipment, and other HIT applications.
    C. Create a communication/transition plan.
    D. Develop a staff education plan on changes.
    I. What change theory would be best for this program?
    II. What educational deliver method (s) would be most effective?
    E. Compose metrics for evaluating the plan in each of the learning domains:
    I. Cognitive
    II. Psychomotor
    III. Effective
find the cost of your paper

Sample Answer

 

 

 

 

Analysis of the RaDonda Vaught Case

A. Summary of the Case (Highlighting HIT):

RaDonda Vaught, a registered nurse, was criminally charged and convicted of criminally negligent homicide and gross neglect of an impaired adult after administering the wrong medication to a patient who subsequently died. The patient was prescribed Versed, a sedative, but Vaught mistakenly administered vecuronium, a paralytic, after overriding multiple safety features within the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR) and medication dispensing system. The case highlights the critical role of HIT in patient safety, specifically the potential for errors when safety mechanisms are bypassed or poorly designed, and the unintended consequences of system design on human factors and workflow.

B. Quality Improvement Model: Root Cause Analysis (RCA)

  • Description:
    • Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a systematic problem-solving method aimed at identifying the fundamental causes of an event or trend. It moves beyond superficial symptoms to uncover the underlying issues that contribute to errors. It typically involves a structured process of data collection, analysis, and solution development.
  • Rationale:
    • RCA is particularly suitable for this case because it focuses on uncovering the system-level failures that contributed to the error, rather than solely blaming the individual. It allows us to examine the interactions between technology, human factors, and organizational processes.
    • It is more effective than a simple PDSA cycle, because it digs deeper into the systemic failures.

C. RCA Application to the Vaught Case:

  • Identify the Problem:
    • Patient death due to medication error.
  • Data Collection:
    • Review EHR logs, medication dispensing records, witness statements, and expert testimony.
    • Analyze the design and functionality of the EHR and medication dispensing system.
  • Identify Contributing Factors:
    • HIT:
      • Overriding safety alerts in the EHR and medication dispensing system.
      • Poor user interface design, leading to confusion and errors.
      • Lack of redundant safety checks.
      • System downtime, and the need to use work arounds.
    • Human Factors:
      • Workplace stress and fatigue.
      • Cognitive biases and decision-making errors.
      • Lack of adequate training on HIT systems.
    • Organizational Factors:
      • Inadequate staffing levels.
      • Lack of clear policies and procedures for medication administration.
      • Culture of accepting work arounds.

Full Answer Section

 

 

 

 

  • Identify Root Causes:
    • System design flaws that allowed for easy override of safety features.
    • Inadequate training and education on HIT systems.
    • Organizational culture that did not prioritize patient safety.
  • Generate Solutions:
    • Redesign HIT systems to improve usability and safety.
    • Implement mandatory training and competency assessments for HIT systems.
    • Develop clear policies and procedures for medication administration.
    • Foster a culture of safety and transparency.

D. Interprofessional Team Members:

  • Pharmacist:
    • Expertise in medication safety and drug interactions.
    • Review medication dispensing processes and identify potential risks.
  • HIT Specialist:
    • Expertise in EHR and medication dispensing system design and functionality.
    • Analyze system logs and identify usability issues.
  • Nurse Manager:
    • Expertise in nursing workflow and patient safety.
    • Provide insights into human factors and organizational culture.
  • Physician:
    • Expertise in medication ordering, and patient safety.
  • Human Factors Engineer:
    • Expertise in the interactions between humans and systems.
  • Risk Manager:
    • Expertise in risk assessment and mitigation.
  • Legal Counsel:
    • Expertise in legal and regulatory requirements.

2. Design Strategies for Workplace Mitigation

A. Visual Representation:

  • Flow Chart: A flowchart depicting the medication administration process, highlighting critical control points and potential error pathways. This flow chart would include each step of the process, and would highlight each interaction with the HIT systems. It would also show were redundant checks should be.

B. Changes to Policies, EHR, Equipment, and HIT Applications:

  • Policies:
    • Implement mandatory double-checks for high-risk medications.
    • Develop clear protocols for overriding safety alerts.
    • Establish a “just culture” that encourages reporting of errors without fear of reprisal.
  • EHR:
    • Redesign the user interface to improve usability and reduce cognitive load.
    • Implement redundant safety checks and alerts.
    • Integrate barcode scanning for medication verification.
    • Create hard stops, for high risk medications.
  • Equipment:
    • Ensure that medication dispensing systems are properly calibrated and maintained.
    • Implement smart infusion pumps.
  • HIT Applications:
    • Utilize clinical decision support tools to prevent medication errors.
    • Implement real-time monitoring of medication administration.

C. Communication/Transition Plan:

  • Establish a communication team.
  • Develop a communication plan that includes regular updates, training sessions, and feedback mechanisms.
  • Utilize multiple communication channels (e.g., email, newsletters, meetings).
  • Provide clear and concise information to all stakeholders.

D. Staff Education Plan:

  • Change Theory:
    • Lewin’s Change Management Model (Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze) would be suitable. This model emphasizes the importance of preparing staff for change, implementing the change, and reinforcing the new practices.
  • Educational Delivery Methods:
    • Interactive workshops and simulations.
    • Online learning modules.
    • Hands-on training with EHR and medication dispensing systems.
    • Role playing.
    • Case studies.

E. Metrics for Evaluation:

  • Cognitive:
    • Post-training knowledge assessments.
    • Competency assessments on HIT systems.
    • Tracking of reported errors and near misses.
  • Psychomotor:
    • Direct observation of medication administration practices.
    • Simulation-based assessments of medication administration skills.
    • Tracking of barcode scanning compliance.
  • Affective:
    • Staff satisfaction surveys.
    • Qualitative feedback on the effectiveness of training.
    • Assessment of staff attitudes toward patient safety.

 

This question has been answered.

Get Answer