The 1999 landmark study titled “To Err Is Human: Building a
Safer Health System” highlighted the unacceptably high incidence of U.S.
medical errors and put forth recommendations to improve patient safety. Since
its publication, the recommendations in “To Err Is Human’” have guided
significant changes in nursing practice in the United States.
In this Discussion, you will review these recommendations
and consider the role of health information technology in helping address
concerns presented in the report.
Review the summary of “To Err Is Human” presented in the
Plawecki and Amrhein article found in this week’s Learning Resources.
Consider the following statement:
“The most significant barrier to improving patient safety
identified in “To Err Is Human”is a “lack of awareness of the extent to which
errors occur daily in all health care settings and organizations (Wakefield,
Review “The Quality Chasm Series: Implications for Nursing”
focusing on Table 3: “Simple Rules for the 21st Century Health Care System.”
Consider your current organization or one with which you are familiar. Reflect
on one of the rules where the “current rule” is still in operation in the
organization and consider another instance in which the organization has
effectively transitioned to the new rule.
By Day 3
Post your thoughts on how the development of information
technology has helped address the concerns about patient safety raised in the
“To Err Is Human” report. Summarize how informatics has assisted in improving
health care safety in your organization and areas where growth is still needed.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.
By Day 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different
days using one or more of the following approaches:
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings,
synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings
from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from
readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional
insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.