5 ms·
> But more than anything already listed... the nurse didn't question giving someone 38 pills beyond "must be dilluted" yet the article pushes the focus to how t
by fucking_tragedy 8y ago
> But more than anything already listed... the nurse didn't question giving someone 38 pills beyond "must be dilluted" yet the article pushes the focus to how technology led to the error?
The nurse did question it further. I feel as though the articles addressed this and your subsequent point pretty adequately.
> Since the Paleolithic Era, we humans have concocted explanations for stuff we don’t quite understand: tides, seasons, gravity, death. The idea that the Septra might have been diluted was the first of many rationalizations that Levitt would formulate to explain the unusual dose and to justify her decision to administer it. At first glance it might seem crazy for her to have done so, but the decisions she made that night were entirely consistent with patterns of error seen in medicine and other complex industries.
> What is new for medicine is the degree to which very expensive, state-of-the-art technology designed to prevent human mistakes not only helped give rise to
the Septra error, but also failed to stop it, despite functioning exactly as it was programmed.
> The human lapses that occurred after the computerized ordering system and pill-dispensing robots did their jobs perfectly well is a textbook case of English psychologist James Reason’s “Swiss cheese model” of error. Reason’s model holds that all complex organizations harbor many “latent errors,” unsafe conditions that are, in essence, mistakes waiting to happen. They’re like a forest carpeted with dry underbrush, just waiting for a match or a lightning strike.
> Still, there are legions of errors every day in complex organizations that don’t lead to major accidents. Why? Reason found that these organizations have built-in protections that block glitches from causing nuclear meltdowns, or plane crashes, or train derailments. Unfortunately, all these protective layers have holes, which he likened to the holes in slices of Swiss cheese.
> On most days, errors are caught in time, much as you
remember to grab your house keys right before you lock yourself out. Those errors that evade the first layer of protection are caught by the second. Or the third. When a terrible “organizational accident” occurs — say, a space shuttle crash or a September 11–like intelligence breakdown — post hoc analysis virtually always reveals that the root cause was the failure of multiple layers, a grim yet perfect alignment of the holes in the metaphorical slices of Swiss cheese. Reason’s model reminds us that most errors are caused by good, competent people who are trying to do the right thing, and that bolstering the system — shrinking the holes in the Swiss cheese or adding overlapping layers — is generally far more productive than trying to purge the system of human error, an impossibility.
- Valmar 8y agoHmmmm. This assuages my annoyance, thankfully.
- zamadatix 8y agoI fail to see how the quote that she didn't question it beyond thinking it must be dilluted is an example of how she question giving someone 38 pills beyond "must be dilluted". Is any other line here actually relevant to technology or just how errors end up occurring even though you have resilient systems and checks built in? I.e. what about any of those has to do with technology itself?
- darpa_escapee 8y ago> I fail to see how the quote that she didn't question it beyond thinking it must be dilluted is an example of how she question giving someone 38 pills beyond "must be dilluted". From the above: > The idea that the Septra might have been diluted was the first of many rationalizations that Levitt would formulate to explain the unusual dose and to justify her decision to administer it. If you read the rest of the article, and not just what I've selected, there are multiple points in which the author quotes the nurse about her decision making process.
- zamadatix 8y agoI read all of the parts before making my first comment in the thread. I think you and I must disagree on what I meant by questioning the large dosage. I don't mean it as a thought exercise involving just the nurse trying to figure out why the dosage is so irregular rather the physical questioning process of validating the odd dosage with the assigning doctor before prescribing. I pointed it out not to say it's all the singular nurses fault but rather something glossed over in an article written against a technology system that had it's safeguards purposefully disabled. If anything the human error presented in the article is many times greater than technology error, reading the headline I expected the pill robot to have some error relating to batch size or some code error converting units wrong not a single confusing UI element as part of a string of overall hospital process and validation errors.