{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02241238793806031, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003667481662591687, 'mean_word_length': 5.1375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Risk Management in the Ambulatory Care Process in a Mutual Benefit Association Covering Work-Related Accidents and Diseases: Applying Modified Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) Methodology

Supplemental digital content is available in the text. Aim To assess the impact of different forms of use of failure mode and effect analysis methodology for risk prioritization in the ambulatory care process in a mutual benefit association covering work-related accidents and diseases. Methods The study is based on a previously drafted and individually prioritized risk map by a multidisciplinary team made up of patient safety committee members from health care centers and clinics in a mutual benefit association covering work-related accidents and diseases. The professionals mainly carry out their work in the field of management (individual manager group (IMG)). A group formed by clinicians subsequently completed 2 prioritizations: one based on the individual opinions of each of the members (individual clinical group (ICG)) and another in a consensual way (consensual clinical group (CCG)) as recommended by failure mode and effect analysis methodology. The risk prioritization was compared in the 3 groups (IMG, ICG, and CCG). Results The risk prioritization by the IMG defines 7 extreme risks (risk prioritization ≥ 275). When the clinical group prioritizes them in an individual way (ICG), there is no extreme risk, whereas when it does so in a consensual way (CCG), there are 21 extreme risks. With respect to the coincidences of existing causes between the 3 groups, it is noted that the “risk of falls” is rated by both the clinical and the manager group but prioritized differently. On the other hand, the ICG and CCG coincide in that pressure on health care services can contribute to carrying out incomplete anamnesis. They also both consider that internal and external waiting lists and holiday periods can cause a delay in the starting of rehabilitation. The IMG and the CCG show similarity in the risk assessment of overprescribing medication and that multiple computer sessions are initiated. Finally, the IMG and the ICG coincide in the “lack of delivery of the medication leaflet”. Conclusions The point of view of the clinicians is important in the risk prioritization of the ambulatory health care process. The difference in the risk prioritization between the clinical group at individual level and after consensus is remarkable.