Key result
HFMEA-optimized workflow is linked to substantially shorter AMI emergency times, including Door-to-Balloon time.
Why the study?
The effectiveness of Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) in optimizing the emergency management workflow for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and its impact on emergency efficiency, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction was investigated.
Does an HFMEA-optimized emergency workflow improve emergency time intervals and clinical outcomes in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction?
Observational
No
Does an HFMEA-optimized emergency workflow improve emergency time intervals and clinical outcomes in patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction?
Effect estimate: Cohen's d ≥ 0.8, r ≥ 0.5
p-value: p=<0.001
Applying HFMEA to optimize the AMI emergency workflow significantly reduces critical treatment time intervals and adverse events while improving patient satisfaction.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA) in optimizing the emergency management workflow for Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI) and to assess its impact on emergency efficiency, clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: AMI patients treated at our hospital during different periods were enrolled and divided into two groups: a control group receiving conventional emergency procedures and a post-optimization group managed with an HFMEA-optimized emergency workflow. The HFMEA implementation involved forming a multidisciplinary team, constructing an integrated prehospital-to-in-hospital treatment process map, identifying high-risk failure modes based on the Risk Priority Number (RPN), developing targeted improvement measures, and establishing an information-based quality monitoring system. Outcome measures included key emergency time intervals, clinical outcomes, and healthcare quality indicators. RESULTS: Following HFMEA implementation, the post-optimization group showed significant reductions in all key emergency time metrics compared with the control group, including triage time, time to first electrocardiogram, Door-to-Catheterization (D-to-C) time, and Door-to-Balloon (D-to-B) time (all P < 0.001), and the effect sizes for all major time-related indicators between the two groups reached the large-effect level (Cohen's d ≥ 0.8, r ≥ 0.5). The total incidence of adverse events was significantly lower in the post-optimization group (P < 0.05), while rescue success rates did not differ significantly between groups (P > 0.05). Regarding healthcare quality, patients in the post-optimization group had shorter hospital stays and higher satisfaction scores as measured by a dedicated survey instrument (both P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: HFMEA effectively identifies high-risk steps within the AMI emergency workflow. Targeted process optimization can significantly enhance emergency efficiency, reduce adverse events, improve healthcare quality, and optimize patient experience.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hu et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI). Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA)-optimized emergency workflow vs. Conventional emergency procedures was evaluated on Key emergency time metrics (triage time, time to first electrocardiogram, Door-to-Catheterization time, and Door-to-Balloon time) (Cohen's d ≥ 0.8, r ≥ 0.5, p=<0.001). An HFMEA-optimized emergency workflow significantly reduced all key emergency time metrics for AMI, including Door-to-Balloon time, compared with conventional procedures (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: