Why the study?
The evolution of patient safety frameworks reflects the realization that blaming individuals, chasing errors, fixing one-offs, and regulation fail to achieve desired safety, highlighting the need to explore frameworks like Safety-3 for anesthesia and perioperative care.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Review
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Traditional safety strategies fall short; leaves open how Safety-3 frameworks should shape perioperative practice and trials.
During the past 70 years, patient safety science has evolved through four organizational frameworks known as Safety-0, Safety -1, Safety-2, and Safety-3. Their evolution reflects the realization over time that blaming people, chasing errors, fixing one-offs, and regulation would not create the desired patient safety. In Safety-0, the oldest framework, harm events arise from clinician failure; event prevention relies on better staffing, education, and basic standards. In Safety-1, used by hospitals, harm events arise from individual and/or system failures. Safety is improved through analytics, workplace culture, high reliability principles, technology, and quality improvement. Safety-2 emphasizes clinicians' adaptability to prevent harm events in an everchanging environment, using resilience engineering principles. Safety-3, used by aviation, adds system design and control elements to Safety-1 and Safety-2, deploying human factors, design-thinking, and operational control or feedback to prevent and respond to harm events. Safety-3 represents a potential way for anesthesia and perioperative care to become safer.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kanjia et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: