Analysis of Learning from IncidentsProcesses in Swedish and DutchHealthcare Systems : A Mixed Methods Study for Cross-Border Learning

Sammanfattning: Many healthcare organisations face repetitive incidents because organisations tend to fail to learn from the past. Learning from incidents (LFI) in healthcare is a process through which healthcare professionals and the organisation as a whole seek to understand adverse events that have taken place. The LFI process consists of five main steps: data acquisition, investigation and analysis, planning interventions, implementing interventions, and evaluations. In order to reduce the reoccurrence of incidents, it is important that LFI processes are improved. As a prerequisite, it is necessary to gain insight into the steps of the LFI process to identify hindrances (bottlenecks) and mitigate them. This thesis is a broad comparative study of the LFI processes in Dutch and Swedish healthcare systems. Cross-border comparisons between LFI systems can support mutual learning, and consequently lead to improvements of healthcare organisations’ learning processes. The study consists of an analysis of Swedish and Dutch legislation, national healthcare inspectorates, and hospitals’ learning from incidents processes. Legislation was analysed through a (legal) documentation study. Healthcare inspectorates’ practices in LFI were analysed by a combination of documentation studies, and by conducting interviews with one Dutch inspector, one Swedish inspector, and one Swedish development strategist. For analysis of hospitals’ LFI processes, a questionnaire and interview study with fourteen Dutch and eleven Swedish hospitals were conducted. Analysis of these processes was done at the hand of a number of quality statements developed based on a literature study. The main differences between how the two countries’ learn from incidents are in data acquisition, and investigation and analysis. The Netherlands have various reporting systems, as well as diversity in incident investigation methods. Sweden has more uniformity in these matters. Moreover, Sweden has a national system for sharing lessons learned between hospitals, which can benefit the learning process on a national level. The Netherlands currently does not have such a system. Sweden and the Netherlands have similar strengths and weaknesses in LFI. Both countries have accessible data acquisition systems, and it does not take much time to report incidents. There are however significant disparities between incidents and sentinel events in both countries in the quality of investigations and analyses, planning of interventions and implementation of interventions. The implementation and evaluation phases are also regarded to have the lowest quality, based on analysis of the quality statements. Dutch and Swedish legislation and the supervision of the healthcare inspectorates only cover these last two phases to a limited extent. Requirements with respect to incidents are also only formulated to a limited extent (except data acquisition), which may explain the significant difference of quality when compared to sentinel events. There are resemblances between the scopes of the legal frameworks and inspectorates, and the LFI processes in hospitals. There is therefore reason to believe that hospitals typically do not excel above what is required by legislation or by the healthcare inspectorates.