Error Prevention and Correction

Ravden and Johnson (1989) evaluate usabihty of human computer interfaces. They identify nine top-level attributes visual clarity, consistency, compatibility, informative feedback, explicitness, appropriate functionality, flexibility and control, error prevention and correction, and user guidance and support. They disaggregate each into a number of more measurable attributes. These attributes can be used as part of a standard multiple-attribute evaluation. 

Error prevention and correction— The extent to which the system prevents user errors from either being made or impacting task performance (error... 

The median error prevention and correction results are presented in Figure 11.9. The error prevention results are particularly poor for Undo, diagnostics (when system errors occur, can the user access all necessary diagnostic information to resolve the... 

The quality assurance component is vital. Quality assurance (QA) is a process that involves the prevention, detection, and correction of errors or problems, and quality control (QC) is a check of the process (Prokscha, 2007). The data stored in the database need to be complete and accurate. Processes that check data and correct them (i.e., make a change to the database) where necessary need to be documented, and all corrections need to be documented in an audit trail such that a later audit can reveal exactly how the final database was created. 

A laboratory QA/QC program is an essential part of a sound management system. It should be used to prevent, detect, and correct problems in the measurement process and/or demonstrate attainment of statistical control through QC samples. The objective of QA/QC programs is to control analytical measurement errors at levels acceptable to the data user and to assure that the analytical results have a high probability of acceptable quality. 

No documented corrective and preventative action for software bugs found during retrospective validation. Validation testing revealed several responses that were unexpected and may potentially adversely affect the performance of the telemetry device. Yet these responses were not evaluated and addressed. These unexpected responses include the software acceptance of a new patient under an existing patient s identifier without displaying an error message and four other imexpected responses documented in the validation document. 

Reason (21) has described a model for looking at human error that portrays a battle between the sources of error and the system-based defenses against them. This model is often referred to as the "Swiss cheese model" because the defenses against error are displayed as thin layers with holes that are described as latent error in the system. Figure 26.5 demonstrates the model as applied to medication error. Each opportunity for error is defended by the prescriber, pharmacist, nurse, and patient. When a potential error is identified and corrected (e.g., dose error, route of administration error) the event becomes a "near miss" rather than an ADE. In those cases in which the holes in the Swiss cheese line up, a preventable medication error occurs. The Swiss cheese model provides an interesting framework for research in this field. 

His second responsibility is to correct errors which occasionally appear in our usually accurate chemical press. Cooperation with reporters and letters to the editor can do much to prevent or correct those errors. The press, in turn, should make every effort to document the sources of statistics which they publish on chemical markets. How unfortunate it is that many times these numbers, lifted from context, assume an authority far beyond their true value. 

The OOS guidance document indicates that laboratory or analyst errors should be relatively rare, and frequent occurrence can be an indication of inadequate training of analysts, poorly calibrated/maintained equipment, or careless work. It should not be assumed that the failing result is attributable to analytical error without performing and documenting an investigation. When a laboratory error is confirmed, the company must determine the source of error, take appropriate corrective actions, and prevent reoccurrence of the incident. 

Government Institutes is also a subsidiary of ABS Consulting. Government Institutes offers a course titled Preventing Human Error—Leam to Identify and Correct System Problems That Cause Human Error. Its descriptive literature says ... 

---