ArticlePloS one2024
A novel framework for human factors analysis and classification system for medical errors (HFACS-MES)-A Delphi study and causality analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Communication failure during operating room turnover: a HFACS-informed qualitative case study of system-level coordination.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Human factors in yachting tourism accidents: an integrated human factors classification framework with statistical and network analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The healthcare system (HCS) is one of the most crucial and essential systems for humanity. Currently, supplying the patients' safety and preventing the medical adverse events (MAEs) in HCS is a global issue. Human and organizational factors (HOFs) are the primary causes of MAEs. However, there are limited analytical methods to investigate the role of these factors in medical errors (MEs). The aim of present study was to introduce a new and applicable framework for the causation of MAEs based on the original HFACS. In this descriptive-analytical study, HOFs related to MEs were initially extracted through a comprehensive literature review. Subsequently, a Delphi study was employed to develop a new human factors analysis and classification system for medical errors (HFACS-MEs) framework. To validate this framework in the causation and analysis of MEs, 180 MAEs were analyzed by using HFACS-MEs. The results showed that the new HFACS-MEs model comprised 5 causal levels and 25 causal categories. The most significant changes in HFACS-MEs compared to the original HFACS included adding a fifth causal level, named "extra-organizational issues", adding the causal categories "management of change" (MOC) and "patient safety culture" (PSC) to fourth causal level", adding "patient-related factors (PRF)" and "task elements" to second causal level and finally, appending "situational violations" to first causal level. Causality analyses among categories in the HFACS-MEs framework showed that the new added causal level (extra-organizational issues) have statistically significant relationships with causal factors of lower levels (Φc≤0.41, p-value≤0.038). Other new causal category including MOC, PSC, PRF and situational violations significantly influenced by the causal categories of higher levels and had an statistically significant effect on the lower-level causal categories (Φc>0.2, p-value<0.05). The framework developed in this study serves as a valuable tool in identifying the causes and causal pathways of MAEs, facilitating a comprehensive analysis of the human factors that significantly impact patient safety within HCS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.