title: Training health care professionals in root cause analysis: a cross-sectional study of post-training experiences, benefits and attitudes.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Root cause analysis (RCA) originated in the manufacturing engineering sector but has been adapted for routine use in healthcare to investigate patient safety incidents and facilitate organizational learning. Despite the limitations of the RCA evidence base, healthcare authorities and decision makers in NHS Scotland - similar to those internationally - have invested heavily in developing training programmes to build local capacity and capability, and this is a cornerstone of many organizational policies for investigating safety-critical issues. However, to our knowledge there has been no systematic attempt to follow-up and evaluate post-training experiences of RCA-trained staff in Scotland. Given the significant investment in people, time and funding we aimed to capture and learn from the reported experiences, benefits and attitudes of RCA-trained staff and the perceived impact on healthcare systems and safety.
  
  
  METHODS
  We adapted a questionnaire used in a published Australian research study to undertake a cross sectional online survey of health care professionals (e.g. nursing & midwifery, medical doctors and pharmacists) formally trained in RCA by a single territorial health board region in NHS Scotland.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 228/469 of invited staff completed the survey (48%). A majority of respondents had yet to participate in a post-training RCA investigation (n=127, 55.7%). Of RCA-experience staff, 71 had assumed a lead investigator role (70.3%) on one or more occasions. A clear majority indicated that their improvement recommendations were generally or partly implemented (82%). The top three barriers to RCA success were cited as: lack of time (54.6%), unwilling colleagues (34%) and inter-professional differences (31%). Differences in agreement levels between RCA-experienced and inexperienced respondents were noted on whether a follow-up session would be beneficial after conducting RCA (65.3% v 39.4%) and if peer feedback on RCA reports would be of educational value (83.2% v 37.0%). Comparisons with the previous research highlighted significant differences such as less reported difficulties within RCA teams (P<0.001) and a greater proportion of respondents taking on RCA leadership roles in this study (P<0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This study adds to our knowledge and understanding of the need to improve the effectiveness of RCA training and frontline practices in healthcare settings. The overall evidence points to a potential organisational learning need to provide RCA-trained staff with continuous development opportunities and performance feedback. Healthcare authorities may wish to look more critically at whom they train in RCA, and how this is delivered and supported educationally to maximize cost-benefits, organizational learning and safer patient care.
authors: Postgraduate General Practice Education, NHS Education for Scotland, 2 Central Quay, Glasgow, Scotland, G3 8BW, United Kingdom. paul.bowie@nes.scot.nhs.uk
authors: Paul
authors: P
authors: Bowie
authors: Joe
authors: J
authors: Skinner
authors: Carl
authors: C
authors: de Wet
mesh_terms: D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006282:Health Personnel / Q000193:education*; D006801:Humans; D060891:Root Cause Analysis; D012606:Scotland
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Aug;13(4):242-3
references: 15289620
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Dec;19(6):e63
references: 20671073
references: Health Technol Assess. 2005 May;9(19):1-143, iii
references: 15890139
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Aug;18(4):288-91
references: 19651933
references: Balance. 1998 Jul-Aug;2(5):12-5
references: 10186013
references: JAMA. 2008 Feb 13;299(6):685-7
references: 18270357
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Dec;15(6):388-9
references: 17142583
references: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Jul;34(7):391-8
references: 18677870
references: Soc Sci Med. 2006 Apr;62(7):1605-15
references: 16213643
references: Aust Health Rev. 2005 Nov;29(4):422-8
references: 16255706
references: Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002 Oct;28(10):531-45
references: 12369156
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Dec;15(6):393-9
references: 17142585
references: Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Dec;13 Suppl 2:ii3-9
references: 15576689
references: Qual Health Res. 2008 Jan;18(1):120-32
references: 18174540
references: J Health Serv Res Policy. 2011 Apr;16 Suppl 1:34-41
references: 21460348
references: J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Aug;14(4):520-36
references: 18462290