ArticleCureus2026
Detecting the Failures Nobody Sees: Applying Pareto Analysis and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis to Equipment Reliability in a Healthcare Simulation Institute.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Hospitals have used failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for two decades to examine clinical processes before they fail, and healthcare simulation has served as a useful instrument for carrying out that analysis. The equipment inside the simulation center has attracted far less scrutiny. Audiovisual (AV) and manikin failures interrupt teaching, and when video capture is affected, they destroy the recording on which objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) grading and debriefing depend. Methods We analyzed a 24-month log of reported equipment incidents (N = 22) from the simulation institute of an offshore medical school using Pareto analysis, Fishbone (Ishikawa) diagrams with Five Whys questioning, and FMEA. The work formed the Define, Measure, and Analyze phases of a Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC) quality improvement cycle. Severity anchors were set by institute leadership according to consequence; Occurrence was scored from observed frequency; and Detection reflected how each failure mode ordinarily comes to notice. The risk priority number (RPN) was calculated as the product of the three scores. Results AV and network problems accounted for seven incidents (31.8%) and manikin power or mechanical failures for six (27.3%), together making up 13 (59.1%) of the total. FMEA ranked capture failure during OSCEs at the top, with an RPN of 378, well ahead of manikin total shutdown at 140, even though the shutdown carried the maximum severity score. Detectability accounted for the whole of the difference. A shutdown stops the session and is obvious within seconds; a capture failure leaves the session looking entirely normal and comes to light only when someone asks for a recording that was never made. Conclusions Prioritizing equipment risk by severity alone would have ranked manikin shutdown as the highest risk, while leaving the more damaging failure unaddressed. Detectability deserves a place alongside severity in simulation operations improvement work. We set out the incident classification scheme, the scoring anchors, and a five-step workflow so that other programs can run the same analysis against their data.
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.