Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 31, Issue 8, pp 637–642 | Cite as

Is the Principle of a Stable Heinrich Ratio a Myth?

A Multimethod Analysis
  • Steve Gallivan
  • Katja Taxis
  • Bryony Dean Franklin
  • Nick Barber
Special Article

Abstract

Background: Safety improvements are sometimes based on the premise that introducing measures to combat minor or no-harm incidents proportionately reduces the incidence of major incidents involving harm. This is in line with the principle of the Heinrich ratio, which asserts that there is a relatively fixed ratio between the incidence of no-harm incidents, minor incidents and major incidents. This principle has been advocated as a means of targeting and evaluating new safety initiatives.

Research Methodology: Both thought experimentation and analysis of empirical data were used to examine the plausibility of this principle. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out using triangle plots to display the relative frequencies of the occurrence of safety incidents classified as minor, moderate or severe.

Findings: Thought experiments indicated that the principle of a fixed Heinrich ratio has a dubious logical foundation. Analysis of emergency department attendance and studies of medication errors demonstrated marked variation in the relative ratios of different outcomes. Triangle plots of UK road traffic accident data revealed a hitherto unrecognized systematic pattern of change that contradicts the principle of the Heinrich ratio.

Interpretation: This study of the principle of a fixed Heinrich ratio invalidates it: introducing measures to reduce the incidence of minor incidents will not inevitably reduce the incidence of major incidents pro rata. Any safety policies based on the assumption that the Heinrich ratio is true need to be rethought.

Keywords

Medication Error Equilateral Triangle Road Traffic Accident Major Incident Industrial Accident 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Department of Health as part of its Patient Safety Research Programme. The study sponsor did not have any role in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; or the writing of the paper. Contributions of authors: All authors were involved in designing the study and writing the final paper. Katja Taxis and Bryony Dean Franklin did most of the literature search; Steve Gallivan wrote the vignettes, developed the graphical method and did the data analysis; Nick Barber is the overall guarantor of the study. None of the authors have any conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Heinrich HW. Industrial accident prevention: a scientific approach. 1st ed. New York and London: McGraw-Hill Insurance Series, 1931Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bird FE, Germain GL. Practical loss control leadership. Rev. ed. Loganville (GA): Det Norske Veritas, 1996Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Health and Safety Executive. The costs of accidents at work. Health and Safety Series booklet, HSG96 ed. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), 1993Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Phimister JR, Oktem U, Kleindorfer PR, et al. Near-miss incident management in the chemical process industry. Risk Anal 2003; 23(3): 445–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bion JF, Heffner JE. Challenges in the care of the acutely ill. Lancet 2004; 363: 970–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furukawa H, Bunko H, Tsuchiya F, et al. Voluntary medication error reporting program in a Japanese national university hospital. Ann Pharmacother 2003; 37: 1716–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaplan H. Lessons learned. Transfusion 2001; 41: 575–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hospers J. The way the world works: the problem of induction. In: Hospers J. An introduction to philosophical analysis. 4th ed. London: Routledge, 1997: 122–5Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wadman MC, Muellemann RL, Coto JA, et al. The pyramid of injury: using ecodes to accurately describe the burden of injury. Ann Emerg Med 2003; 42: 468–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jha AK, Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, et al. Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998 May; 5(3): 305–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Transport statistics bulletin: road casualties in Great Britain. SB (04) 30. Department of Transport, 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatables-publications/accidents/casualtiesmr/roadcasualtiesingreat-britain5104[Accessed 2004 Jul 21]
  12. 12.
    Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. 2nd ed. London: Chapman & Hall, 1992Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bates DW, Boyle DL, Van der Vliet M, et al. Relationship between medication errors and adverse drug events. J Gen Int Med 1995; 10: 199–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaushal R, Bates DW, Landrigan C, et al. Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. JAMA 2001; 285: 2114–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dean B, Schachter M, Vincent C, et al. Prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: their incidence and clinical significance. Qual Saf Health Care 2002; 11: 340–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lesar TS, Briceland L, Stein DS. Factors related to errors in medication prescribing. JAMA 1997; 277: 312–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dean B, Barber N. The effects of a patient’s own drugs scheme on the incidence and severity of medication administration errors. Int J Pharm Pract 2000; 8: 209–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Taxis K, Barber N. Incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors in a German hospital. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 59(11): 815–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taxis K, Barber N. Ethnographic study of incidence and severity of intravenous drug errors. BMJ 2003; 326: 684–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van den Bemt PMLA, Fijn R, van der Voort PHJ, et al. Frequency and determinants of drug administration errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2002; 30(4): 846–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hartley GM, Dhillon S. An observational study of the prescribing and administration of intravenous drugs in a general hospital. Int J Pharm Pract 1998; 6: 38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tissot E, Cornette C, Demoly P, et al. Medication errors at the administration stage in an intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 1999; 25: 353–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dean Franklin B, Vincent C, Schachter M, et al. Prescribing errors: an overview of research methods. Drug Saf 2005; 28(10): 891–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wright L, Van der Schaaf T. Accident versus near miss causation: a critical review of the literature, an empirical test in the UK railway domain, and their implications for other sectors. J Hazard Mater 2004; 111: 105–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steve Gallivan
    • 1
  • Katja Taxis
    • 2
  • Bryony Dean Franklin
    • 3
    • 4
  • Nick Barber
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Clinical Operational Research Unit, Department of MathematicsUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of Pharmacy, Division of Pharmacotherapy and Pharmaceutical Care (GUIDE)University of GroningenGroningenthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Centre for Patient Safety and Service QualityImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Practice and Policy, School of PharmacyUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations