Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2012 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2012 Open Access

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012

Failure mode and effects analysis outputs: are they valid?

Zeitschrift:
BMC Health Services Research > Ausgabe 1/2012
Autoren:
Nada Atef Shebl, Bryony Dean Franklin, Nick Barber
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-12-150) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Nada Atef Shebl, Bryony Dean Franklin and Nick Barber contributed equally to this work.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contribution

NS helped design the study, collected the data, analysed and interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. NB and BDF helped design the study, reviewed the outputs for face validity, interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Abstract

Background

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is a prospective risk assessment tool that has been widely used within the aerospace and automotive industries and has been utilised within healthcare since the early 1990s. The aim of this study was to explore the validity of FMEA outputs within a hospital setting in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Two multidisciplinary teams each conducted an FMEA for the use of vancomycin and gentamicin. Four different validity tests were conducted:
· Face validity: by comparing the FMEA participants’ mapped processes with observational work.
· Content validity: by presenting the FMEA findings to other healthcare professionals.
· Criterion validity: by comparing the FMEA findings with data reported on the trust’s incident report database.
· Construct validity: by exploring the relevant mathematical theories involved in calculating the FMEA risk priority number.

Results

Face validity was positive as the researcher documented the same processes of care as mapped by the FMEA participants. However, other healthcare professionals identified potential failures missed by the FMEA teams. Furthermore, the FMEA groups failed to include failures related to omitted doses; yet these were the failures most commonly reported in the trust’s incident database. Calculating the RPN by multiplying severity, probability and detectability scores was deemed invalid because it is based on calculations that breach the mathematical properties of the scales used.

Conclusion

There are significant methodological challenges in validating FMEA. It is a useful tool to aid multidisciplinary groups in mapping and understanding a process of care; however, the results of our study cast doubt on its validity. FMEA teams are likely to need different sources of information, besides their personal experience and knowledge, to identify potential failures. As for FMEA’s methodology for scoring failures, there were discrepancies between the teams’ estimates and similar incidents reported on the trust’s incident database. Furthermore, the concept of multiplying ordinal scales to prioritise failures is mathematically flawed. Until FMEA’s validity is further explored, healthcare organisations should not solely depend on their FMEA results to prioritise patient safety issues.
Zusatzmaterial
Authors’ original file for figure 1
12913_2011_2025_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Authors’ original file for figure 2
12913_2011_2025_MOESM2_ESM.pdf
Authors’ original file for figure 3
12913_2011_2025_MOESM3_ESM.pdf
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

BMC Health Services Research 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe