Risk Analysis. Risk Management. It all sounds good. Very few people in the world will argue against doing some kind of Risk Analysis and Management. But just exactly what kind of analysis should you do? What's a practical approach?
Risk analysis - where to start? That’s the question facing a medical laboratory that attempts to implement a risk analysis process.
The ISO and CLSI guidelines provide brief outlines of the steps in the risk analysis process [1-5], but they leave out the many details that are important in implementing a practical process. Much additional information is provided by the Joint Commission’s (JC) manual on “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis in Health Care: Proactive Risk Reduction” [6] which should already be available in those healthcare organizations accredited by Joint Commission. Others can purchase this document via the JC website (www.JC.org). The potential advantage of the JC methodology is that someone in your organization may already have experience with risk analysis and may have developed the training and support staff to facilitate the applications in your organization. Given that potential, it is important to carefully review the JC methodology to see how it fits for laboratory applications.
The JC has been the driving force for application of risk analysis in healthcare organizations in the US. The JC standards for patient safety and performance improvement require that risk management be implemented:
QPS.11 “An ongoing program of risk management is used to identify and reduce unanticipated adverse events and other safety risks to patients and staff.
1. The organization leaders adopt a risk management framework to include the following: a) risk identification; b) risk prioritization; c) risk reporting; d) risk management; e) investigation of adverse events; f) management of related claims.
2. The organization conducts and documents use of a proactive risk-reduction tool at least annually on one of the priority risk processes.
3. The organization’s leaders take action to redesign high-risk processes based on the analysis.”
Note that item 2 requires a risk-reduction tool be utilized at least annually. While that requirement doesn’t identify a specific tool, the JC methodology makes use of Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), which is also the common tool that is recommended in the ISO and CLSI guidelines. Thus, the approximately 150 page JC manual might be expected to provide some help for implementing risk analysis and utilizing the FMEA tool in a medical laboratory.
The JC manual provides a step-by-step guidance for use of FMEA, as shown in figure 9-1:
This methodology has broad application and assumes significant resources and authority. It employs a project team, which can be resource intensive, sometimes difficult to manage, and often inefficient unless carefully facilitated. It assumes the authority to redesign a process in order to make significant changes that will reduce risk and improve safety. Such redesign is almost always a major project that affects many functions, departments, and people, making implementation difficult, time-consuming, and often costly. The methodology seems appropriate for cross-function or cross-department processes, but such improvement projects will require a major commitment by the organization if the project is to be successful. That may be the reason that the basic JC requirement is that the organization performs risk analysis at least annually, but does not require that it be done annually by individual departments or functions. That is also why the selection of the high-risk process is so critical and requires careful consideration.
We will describe this methodology in more detail in module III of our Risk Analysis course. Meanwhile, here are some important points to keep in mind when considering the implementation of a risk analysis methodology in your laboratory:
The Joint Commission proactive risk reduction methodology provides detailed guidance for implementation of risk analysis in healthcare organizations. For US medical laboratories, it is advantageous to adopt the JC methodology when the critical process is pre-analytic or post-analytic. However, if the critical process is analytic, there may be other quality management tools and methodology that will be more effective, e.g., method validation protocols, Six Sigma quality improvement methodology, etc. For the particular situation where risk analysis is to be used to customize QC procedures for the analytic process, the JC methodology may be adapted or modified to provide more efficient and effective applications. Such modifications should consider the following: