Krouwer Consulting
 

 

Home
Up
Modeling
Freq. of Med. Errors
Frequency of Medical Errors II
Six Sigma
Six Sigma II
Six Sigma III
Outliers
Equivalent QC
Equivalent QC2
Sys. not People
Near Miss
Detection
Recovery
Risk Management
FMEA FRACAS
Fault Tree Example
Beware the Technical Administrator
Discrepant Analysis
FMEA Validation
Proficiency Testing and Six Sigma
It's Up To the Lab Director
Bland Altman Plots
Risk Management II
Unit Use QC
The reverse Pareto – not a good
Risk Management III
Pedigree of Approaches to Reduce Error
What it Takes to Get New Ideas Accepted
FMEA FRACAS FTs Pareto
When to conduct FMEA
Error Reporting Systems for Clin
Customer Misuse
Fault Isolation
Uniformity of Claims
Outliers in QC and Proficiency Testing
The quality of quality initiativ
Publishing in journals or on web
FDA Waiver Guidance
Pay for Performance
Pay for performance II
Performance vs. Attribute Goals
ISO Terminology
Latent Errors
Preventable medical errors
Troponin I
GUM Comment
More on GUM
Standards Issues
Slow Qual. Progress
More QC?
Report Writing
Software Validation
Dump Data

FMEA, FRACAS, Fault Trees, and Pareto Analysis

A previous essay described FMEA and FRACAS. The following figure, modeled after the VA HFMEA severity and probability grid, shows the relationship among these terms.

 
Legend – The degree of blue color indicates the quantity for each cell. Thus, the 4x4 cell is largely empty whereas the 1x1 cell has the highest quantity of failure events.

This figure can be used to describe either FMEA or FRACAS events, where to recall, FMEA signifies potential events and FRACAS signifies observed events.

For example, an event such as wrong site surgery is a FMEA event, because for most hospitals, this is a potential event and has not been observed. It is an event with a severe effect so one must question whether sufficient control measures are in place to continue to prevent this event from occurring.

All potential events have causes and causes are also events. This is where a fault tree is valuable. One can establish causes for a connected series of events and view as a graph (there are no graphs in a FMEA), causes connected to a higher level patient harm event. The lower level events – the causes – often are observed events and these are the FRACAS events. One wishes to ensure that in spite of the occurrence of these causes, no patient harm event will occur because there are sufficient control measures to terminate the connected series of events. In a fault tree which enumerates all error events, there will be other observed events which don’t lead to patient harm. The purpose of a Pareto analysis is to distinguish the criticality among causes so that resources can be concentrated on causes connected to patient harm. Although this may seem obvious, in the real world, one is faced with the tradeoff of providing corrective actions for many cost related FRACAS events vs. those connected with patient safety but extremely rare.