Clinical risk and collective competence in the hospital emergency department in the UK
AbstractThe hospital emergency department (ED) is a risky environment, often subject to litigation for negligence. Risk is defined as an avoidable increase in the probability of an adverse outcome for a patient. With the aim of identifying the sources of risk, this study carried out participant observation and collected critical incidents in two EDs in the UK for a period of 30 months. Active failures included delay in beginning investigations or treatment, failure to obtain diagnostic information, misinterpretation of diagnostic information and the administration of inappropriate treatment. Three latent conditions underlay these failures: patients' unrestricted access to the ED, cognitive errors by individual members of staff and a strict horizontal and vertical division of labour. An analysis of the incidents resulting from the third latent condition identified a contradiction between the division of labour and working conditions in the ED. The paradigm circumstances under which this contradiction can result in active failures are described. The management of risks arising in this way could be improved by developing a workplace culture in which 'sapiential authority' -- authority derived from experience, special access to information or being at hand in an emergency -- is recognised in addition to authority derived from a formal status. However, as long the contradictions between the division of labour and working conditions remain, accidents should be considered normal events.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.
Volume (Year): 51 (2000)
Issue (Month): 1 (July)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.