Identify the members of the interdisciplinary team who will be included in the RCA and FMEA.

RTT Task 2
value: 0.00 value: 1.00 value: 2.00 value: 3.00 value: 4.00 Score/Level
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics) The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response. The candidate provides weak articulation of response. The candidate provides limited articulation of response. The candidate provides adequate articulation of response. The candidate provides substantial articulation of response.
A. Root Cause Analysis The candidate does not complete an appropriate root cause analysis that takes into consideration causative factors that led to the sentinel event. The candidate completes an appropriate root cause analysis, with no detail, that takes into consideration causative factors that led to the sentinel event. The candidate completes an appropriate root cause analysis, with limited detail, that takes into consideration causative factors that led to the sentinel event. The candidate completes an appropriate root cause analysis, with adequate detail, that takes into consideration causative factors that led to the sentinel event. The candidate completes an appropriate root cause analysis, with substantial detail, that takes into consideration causative factors that led to the sentinel event.
A1. Errors or Hazards The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the errors or hazards in care in the scenario. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the errors or hazards in care in the scenario. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the errors or hazards in care in the scenario. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the errors or hazards in care in the scenario. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the errors or hazards in care in the scenario.
B. Improvement Plan The candidate does not use change theory to develop an appropriate improvement plan to decrease the likelihood of a reoccurrence of the outcome of the scenario. The candidate uses change theory to develop an appropriate improvement plan, with no detail, to decrease the likelihood of a reoccurrence of the outcome of the scenario. The candidate uses change theory to develop an appropriate improvement plan, with limited detail, to decrease the likelihood of a reoccurrence of the outcome of the scenario. The candidate uses change theory to develop an appropriate improvement plan, with adequate detail, to decrease the likelihood of a reoccurrence of the outcome of the scenario. The candidate uses change theory to develop an appropriate improvement plan, with substantial detail, to decrease the likelihood of a reoccurrence of the outcome of the scenario.
C. FMEA The candidate does not use a failure mode and effects analysis to project the likelihood that the process improvement plan suggested would not fail. The candidate uses a failure mode and effects analysis, with no support, to project the likelihood that the process improvement plan suggested would not fail. The candidate uses a failure mode and effects analysis, with limited support, to project the likelihood that the process improvement plan suggested would not fail. The candidate uses a failure mode and effects analysis, with adequate support, to project the likelihood that the process improvement plan suggested would not fail. The candidate uses a failure mode and effects analysis, with substantial support, to project the likelihood that the process improvement plan suggested would not fail.
C1.
Interventions The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how to test any interventions to improve care in a similar situation by changing the process of care. The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no support, of how to test any interventions to improve care in a similar situation by changing the process of care. The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited support, of how to test any interventions to improve care in a similar situation by changing the process of care. The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate support, of how to test any interventions to improve care in a similar situation by changing the process of care. The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial support, of how to test any interventions to improve care in a similar situation by changing the process of care.
C2. Pre-Steps The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of pre-steps for preparing for the FMEA. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of pre-steps for preparing for the FMEA. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of pre-steps for preparing for the FMEA. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of pre-steps for preparing for the FMEA. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of pre-steps for preparing for the FMEA.
C3. Three Steps The candidate does not provide an appropriate description of the 3 steps of the FMEA: severity, occurrence, and detection. The candidate provides an appropriate description, with no detail, of the 3 steps of the FMEA: severity, occurrence, and detection. The candidate provides an appropriate description, with limited detail, of the 3 steps of the FMEA: severity, occurrence, and detection. The candidate provides an appropriate description, with adequate detail, of the 3 steps of the FMEA: severity, occurrence, and detection. The candidate provides an appropriate description, with substantial detail, of the 3 steps of the FMEA: severity, occurrence, and detection.
D. Key Role of Nurses The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of the key role nurses would play in improving the quality of care in this situation. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of the key role nurses would play in improving the quality of care in this situation. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the key role nurses would play in improving the quality of care in this situation. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of the key role nurses would play in improving the quality of care in this situation. The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of the key role nurses would play in improving the quality of care in this situation.
E. Sources There is evidence of quoted, paraphrased or summarized content without acknowledgement of source information. This level is also appropriate if task instructions require the candidate to quote, paraphrase or summarize content from a source to complete the assessment, and this has not yet been done. The candidate provides required acknowledgement of source information for quoted, paraphrased and summarized content. However, in-text citations and/or source information is incomplete or inaccurate with respect to author, date, title and the location of the information (e.g., publisher, journal or website URL). N/A N/A The candidate provides source information for all quoted, paraphrased and summarized content. Source information appears to include accurate and complete acknowledgement of source information regarding the author, date, title and location of the information (e.g., publisher, journal or website URL) as well as appropriate in-text citation. This level is also appropriate if there is no evidence of quoted, paraphrased or summarized content, and it is not required by the instructions.

Healthcare organizations accredited by the Joint Commission are required to conduct a root cause analysis (RCA) in response to any sentinel event such as the one described below. Once the cause is identified and a plan of action established, it is useful to conduct a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to reduce the likelihood that a process would fail. As a member of the healthcare team in the hospital described in this scenario, you have been selected as a member of the team investigating the incident.

Scenario:

It is 3:30 p.m. on a Thursday and Mr. B, a 67-year-old patient, arrives at the six-room emergency department (ED) of a sixty-bed rural hospital. He has been brought to the hospital by his son and neighbor. At this time, Mr. B is moaning and complaining of severe pain to his (L) leg and hip area. He states he lost his balance and fell after tripping over his dog.

Mr. B was admitted to the triage room where his vital signs were B/P 120/80, HR-88 (regular), T-98.6, R-32, and his weight was recorded at 175 pounds. Mr. B. states that he has no known allergies and no previous falls. He states, “My hip area and leg hurt really bad. I have never had anything like this before.” Patient rates pain at ten out of ten on the numerical verbal pain scale. He appears to be in moderate distress. His (L) leg appears shortened with swelling (edema in the calf), ecchymosis, and limited range of motion (ROM). Mr. B’s leg is stabilized and then he is further evaluated and discharged from triage to the emergency department (ED) patient room. He is admitted by Nurse J. The admitting nurse finds that Mr. B has a history of impaired glucose tolerance and prostate cancer. At Mr. B’s last visit with his primary care physician, laboratory data revealed elevated cholesterol and lipids. Mr. B’s current medications are atorvastatin and oxycodone for chronic back pain. After the nurse completes Mr. B’s assessment, Nurse J informs the ED physician of admission findings and the ED physician proceeds to examine Mr. B.

Staffing on this day consists of two nurses (one RN and one LPN), one secretary, and one emergency department physician. Respiratory therapy is in-house and available as needed. At the time of Mr. B’s arrival, the ED staff is caring for two other patients. One patient is a 43-year-old female complaining of a throbbing headache. The patient rates current pain at four out of ten on numerical verbal pain scale. The patient states that she has a history of migraines. She received treatment, remains stable, and discharge is pending. The second patient is an eight-year-old boy being evaluated for possible appendicitis. Laboratory results are pending for this patient. Both of these patients were examined, evaluated, and cared for by the ED physician and are awaiting further treatment or orders.

After evaluation of Mr. B, Dr. T, the ED physician, writes the order for Nurse J to administer diazepam 5 mg IVP to Mr. B. The medication diazepam is administered IVP at 4:05 p.m. After five minutes, the diazepam appears to have had no effect on Mr. B, and Dr. T instructs Nurse J to administer hydromorphone 2 mg IVP. The medication (hydromorphone) is administered IVP at 4:15 p.m. After five minutes, Dr. T is still not satisfied with the level of sedation Mr. B has achieved and instructs Nurse J to administer another 2 mg of hydromorphone IVP and an additional 5 mg of diazepam IVP. The physician’s goal is for the patient to achieve skeletal muscle relaxation from the diazepam, which will aid in the manual manipulation, relocation, and alignment of Mr. B’s hip. The hydromorphone IVP was administered to achieve pain control and sedation. After reviewing the patient’s medical history, Dr. T notes that the patient’s weight and current regular use of oxycodone appear to be making it more difficult to sedate Mr. B.

Finally at 4:25, the patient appears to be sedated and the successful reduction of his (L) hip takes place. The patient appears to have tolerated the procedure and remains sedated. He is not currently on any supplemental oxygen. The procedure concludes at 4:30 p.m. and Mr. B is resting without indications of discomfort and distress. At this time, the ED receives an emergency dispatch call alerting the emergency department that the emergency rescue unit paramedics are en route with a 75-year-old patient in acute respiratory distress. Nurse J places Mr. B on an automatic blood pressure machine programmed to monitor his B/P every five minutes and a pulse oximeter. At this time Nurse J leaves his room. The nurse allows Mr. B’s son to sit with him as he is being monitored via the blood pressure monitor. At 4:35, Mr. B’s B/P is 110/62 and his O2 sat is 92%. He remains without supplemental oxygen and his ECG and respirations are not monitored.

Nurse J and the LPN on duty have received the emergency transport patient. They are also in the process of discharging the other two patients. Meanwhile, the ED lobby has become congested with new incoming patients. At this time, Mr. B’s O2 saturation alarm is heard and shows “low O2 saturation” (currently showing a sat of 85%). The LPN enters Mr. B’s room briefly and resets the alarm and repeats the B/P reading.

Nurse J is now fully engaged with the emergency care of the respiratory distress patient, which includes assessments, evaluation, and the ordering respiratory treatments, CXR, labs, etc.

At 4:43, Mr. B’s son comes out of the room and informs the nurse that the “monitor is alarming.” When Nurse J enters the room, the blood pressure machine shows Mr. B’s B/P reading is 58/30 and the O2 sat is 79%. The patient is not breathing and no palpable pulse can be detected.

A STAT CODE is called and the son is escorted to the waiting room. The code team arrives and begins resuscitative efforts. When connected to the cardiac monitor, Mr. B is found to be in ventricular fibrillation. CPR begins immediately by the RN, and Mr. B is intubated. He is defibrillated and reversal agents, IV fluids, and vasopressors are administered. After 30 minutes of interventions, the ECG returns to a normal sinus rhythm with a pulse and a B/P of 110/70. The patient is not breathing on his own and is fully dependent on the ventilator. The patient’s pupils are fixed and dilated. He has no spontaneous movements and does not respond to noxious stimuli. Air transport is called and, upon the family’s wishes, the patient is transferred to a tertiary facility for advanced care.

Seven days later, the receiving hospital informed the rural hospital that EEG’s had determined brain death in Mr. B. The family had requested life-support be removed, and Mr. B subsequently died.

Additional information: The hospital where Mr. B. was originally seen and treated had a moderate sedation/analgesia (“conscious sedation”) policy that requires that the patient remains on continuous B/P, ECG, and pulse oximeter throughout the procedure and until the patient meets specific discharge criteria (i.e., fully awake, VSS, no N/V, and able to void). All practitioners who perform moderate sedation must first successfully complete the hospital’s moderate sedation training module. The training module includes drug selection as well as acceptable dose ranges. Additional (backup) staff was available on the day of the incident. Nurse J had completed the moderate sedation module. Nurse J had current ACLS certification and was an experienced critical care nurse. Nurse J’s prior annual clinical evaluations by the manager demonstrated that the nurse was “meeting requirements.” Nurse J did not have a history of negligent patient care. Sufficient equipment was available and in working order in the ED on this day.

Task:

A. Complete a root cause analysis (RCA) that takes into consideration causative factors that led to the sentinel event (this patient’s outcome).
1. Discuss errors or hazards in care in the scenario.

B. Use change theory to develop an improvement plan to decrease the likelihood of a reoccurrence of the outcome of the scenario.

C. Use a failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) to project the likelihood that the process improvement plan you suggest would not fail.
• Identify the members of the interdisciplinary team who will be included in the RCA and FMEA.
1. Explain how you would test any interventions to improve care in a similar situation by changing the process of care.
2. Discuss pre-steps for preparing for the FMEA.
3. Describe the three steps of the FMEA: severity, occurrence, and detection.

Note: You are not expected to carry out the full FMEA, but you should describe each step and how you would go about it.

D. Discuss the key role nurses would play in improving the quality of care in this situation.

E. When you use sources to support ideas and elements in a paper or project, provide acknowledgement of source information for any content that is quoted, paraphrased or summarized. Acknowledgement of source information includes in-text citation noting specifically where in the submission the source is used and a corresponding reference, which includes:
• Author
• Date
• Title
• Location of information (e.g., publisher, journal, or website URL)

Note: The use of APA citation style is encouraged but is not required for this task. Evaluators will offer feedback on the acknowledgement of source information but not with regard to conformity with APA or other citation style. For tips on using APA style, please refer to the APA Resources web link found under General Information/APA Guidelines in the left-hand panel in Taskstream.
Note: No more than a combined total of 30% of a submission can be directly quoted or closely paraphrased from outside sources, even if cited correctly. Note: When bulleted points are present in the task prompt, the level of detail or support called for in the rubric refers to those bulleted points.

Note: For definitions of terms commonly used in the rubric, see the Rubric Terms web link included in the Evaluation Procedures section.

Evaluation Method

Type of paper Academic level Subject area
Number of pages Paper urgency Cost per page:
 Total: