Root Cause Analysis and Quality Improvement in Patient Safety
This paper conducts a root cause analysis of a sentinel event in which a patient (Mr. B) deteriorated fatally following procedural sedation in an emergency department. It identifies failures in policy adherence, staff training, and communication as contributing causes. The paper then applies Kurt Lewin's three-stage change model — unfreeze, transition, and refreeze — to propose a structured improvement plan. A Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) framework is outlined to assess and prevent recurrence. Finally, the paper discusses the central role nurses play in advancing patient safety goals, improving bedside communication, and sustaining quality improvement initiatives within health care organizations.
- Introduction: The Sentinel Event and Root Cause Analysis: Overview of Mr. B's fatal deterioration after sedation
- Policy Failures and Contributing Causes: Identifies sedation policy, monitoring, and staffing failures
- Applying Lewin's Change Theory to Organizational Improvement: Unfreeze, transition, refreeze applied to hospital change
- Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA): FMEA steps mapped to sedation event failures
- The Role of Nurses in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety: Nurses as frontline agents of safety and communication
- Conclusion: Best practices, accountability, and ongoing quality focus
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its analysis in a concrete clinical scenario, making abstract quality-improvement frameworks tangible and immediately applicable.
- Moves logically from problem identification (root cause analysis) through solution design (Lewin's model, FMEA) to implementation strategy (nursing roles), giving the paper a clear cause-and-effect arc.
- Integrates multiple frameworks — change theory, failure analysis, and regulatory standards — without losing focus on the central patient safety concern.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper consistently applies theoretical frameworks to a specific case rather than discussing theory in the abstract. Each phase of Lewin's model and each step of the FMEA process is explicitly mapped back to the events surrounding Mr. B, demonstrating applied analysis — a core skill in health care management and nursing leadership courses.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a factual reconstruction of the sentinel event and identifies three policy/procedural failures through targeted questions. It then introduces Lewin's change model and walks through all three phases as a change-management roadmap. Next, it describes the FMEA methodology and applies each of its three steps to the case. The paper closes by establishing nurses as the primary agents of sustained quality improvement, connecting bedside practice to organizational goals.
Introduction: The Sentinel Event and Root Cause Analysis
Due to a sentinel event that occurred, a root cause analysis is being conducted. The central problem that must be examined is how Mr. B went from resting without any indication of discomfort or distress to not breathing and having no palpable pulse in a matter of fifteen minutes.
After the reduction of the patient's left hip was completed at 4:30, he was placed on an automatic blood pressure machine programmed to monitor his blood pressure every five minutes, along with a pulse oximeter. He was not receiving supplemental oxygen, nor were his ECG and respirations being monitored. The current hospital moderate sedation/analgesia ("conscious sedation") policy requires that a patient remain on continuous blood pressure monitoring, ECG, and pulse oximetry throughout the procedure and until the patient meets specific discharge criteria. That criteria includes the patient being fully awake, vitals stable, no nausea or vomiting, and able to void. These criteria were clearly not being met by Mr. B.
Another issue that must be examined is that at 4:35, when staff left Mr. B's room, his blood pressure was 110/62 and his oxygen saturation was 92%. When an alarm was heard and the LPN entered Mr. B's room, the monitor was registering a "low O2 saturation" reading of 85%. The LPN reset the alarm and repeated the blood pressure reading but never addressed the low oxygen saturation warning.
At the time these events were unfolding, the supervising physician and the LPN on duty had received an emergency transport patient. They were also in the process of discharging two other patients, and the ED lobby had become congested with new incoming patients. Even though additional backup staff was available on that day, no one was called.
Policy Failures and Contributing Causes
The first question that must be asked is why the hospital's moderate sedation/analgesia policy was not followed. The policy clearly states that the patient must remain on continuous ECG monitoring until a predefined set of discharge criteria are met. Mr. B had not met those criteria and should never have been left without ECG monitoring. The second question is why, when the alarm sounded the first time, the LPN simply reset it rather than addressing the low oxygen saturation warning that was being presented.
Hospital policy dictates that all practitioners who perform moderate sedation must first successfully complete the hospital's moderate sedation training module. It is noted that the supervising physician had successfully completed this training, but there is no mention that the LPN had done so. The low oxygen saturation warning should have been addressed by someone — such as the supervising physician — who was properly trained in this area.
The final question that should be raised is why, if backup staff was available when the ED became busy, that staff was not called upon. Is there a defined threshold at which hospital policy requires staff to call for reinforcements, and who is responsible for making that decision? Working under extremely busy circumstances greatly compromises the quality of care delivered to patients. If there is something that can be done to alleviate such a situation, it should be done.
In the case of Mr. B's death, several root causes must be remedied to prevent recurrence. First, all hospital procedures and policies need to be not only well documented but also accessible to all who need them. They must be adhered to at all times, and employees must be held accountable for knowing what the standard operating procedures are and when they must be followed. A second cause involves the need for all personnel working with patients to be fully trained in every procedure required to carry out their job functions. If a person finds themselves in a situation for which they have not been properly trained, a policy must be in place directing them to consult someone who is trained, in order to ensure that proper care is delivered at all times.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.