Introduction
In reference to the Washington hospital policies, an elaborate process is required that show the kind of accident that will be reported and analyzed ((Kaplan, Brown, & Simonson, 2011). Accidents are evaluated and reported depending on the magnitude they present as per the hospital guidelines. Accidents that are severe are taken seriously, and their evaluations occur immediately at the point of occurrence. However, this does not limit or give leeway to the investigators to omit or suspend evaluations of less severe cases that have not caused any damage to the patient. The study will discuss the chain of events that follow patient incidents especially in Washington hospital (Kaplan, Brown, & Simonson, 2011).
Procedure of patient incident
Patient incident analysis starts where identification of the most probable failure that links up the phenomenon is established. According to Pinkney, Nixon, Wilson, Coleman, McGinnis, Stubbs, & Keen (2014), such failures entail held up diagnosis, inadequate referrals, and violation of the code of ethics as well as insufficient supervision. After identifying the problem, investigators are encouraged to construct the problem on chronologically founded data. Problem definition is the next step that accident evaluators should follow after constructing the problem .problem definition, answers the questions the questions how, what as well as why. At this stage, more information is added to the reported incident that is evaluated in terms of the sequence of events and how it occurred. At the same stage, all errors and essential operations designed by staffs are included in the report to form the foundation on which the iccident occurred. Inquiries should be made to ascertain the reasons as to why the omission or the acts were made. Factors that are perceived to have contributed to the incident are well studied and established (Pinkney, Nixon, Wilson, Coleman, McGinnis, Stubbs, & Keen, 2014).
Organization’s process
According to Washington law 2006 established under Chapter 70.56 Revised Code of Washington (Kaplan, Brown, & Simonson, 2011). Accountability and openness should be enhanced to restrict adverse health problems from happening. This law provides various steps that are used to identify the reporting systems as well as evaluating the unfavorable event (Pfeiffer, & Wehner, 2012).The first step is to identify the level of the unfavorable event that results from various errors that include pressure as resulting to ulcers, falls as well as surgical errors. The second step involves filing complain. The step involves the filling a form of claim that is found in the hospital’s website. Each case requires proper analysis to establish the incident cause. This necessitates the formation of the fourth step of the Washington hospital organization process. Here the organization want to know what led to the error. The cause of the problem may be widely ranging from failures in communication to lack of proper education the last step of the process involves using the results of the previous step to minimize the errors or even eradicate them completely (Pfeiffer, & Wehner , 2012)..
Relationships
On the point of accident, both risk as well as quality managers move to a common ground to fulfill their desire on the cause of the problem and the circumstances under which it occurred. However, their interest may vary accordingly. For instance, risk managers, will withhold any information that might lead to the future litigation of the organization especially if such litigation may risk the organization’s income. On the other hand, quality managers are concern with the welfare of the staffs and the clients by ensuring production of quality services (Wiig , Robert, Anderson, Pietikainen, Reiman, Macchi, & Aase, 2014).
Conclusion
Ultimately, all Hospitals across the world should come up with policies that will protect patients as well as medal staffs in time of accident. State governments should develop laws that will govern medical staff patient relationship. Nurses and other medical staffs who violate the rights of staffs should be punished in the court of law.
References
Pfeiffer, Y., & Wehner, T. (2012). Incident Reporting Systems in Hospitals: How Does Learning Occur Using this Organisational Instrument?. In Human Fallibility (pp. 233-252). Springer Netherlands
Pinkney, L., Nixon, J., Wilson, L., Coleman, S., McGinnis, E., Stubbs, N., & Keen, J. (2014). Why do patients develop severe pressure ulcers? A retrospective case study. BMJ open, 4(1), e004303..
Kaplan, L., Brown, M. A., & Simonson, D. (2011). CRNA prescribing practices: the Washington State experience. AANA journal, 79(1).
Wiig, S., Robert, G., Anderson, J. E., Pietikainen, E., Reiman, T., Macchi, L., & Aase, K. (2014). Applying different quality and safety models in healthcare improvement work: Boundary objects and system thinking. Reliability Engineering & System Safety.
