This paper presents a field workshop organised by the Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) focusing on the evaluation of the formalised AcciMap approach by patient safety practitioners of the National Health Service (NHS). Participants who were experienced in incident analysis relating to patient safety and risk management across different NHS boards but had no prior knowledge using the AcciMap approach were recruited for a case study analysis (Wrong Patient) (Chassin and Becher in Ann Intern Med 136:826–833, 2002). They were subsequently divided into three teams after introduction and training, where each team performed an independent case analysis. AcciMap outcomes produced indicated both similar and varying contributing factors identified by each team. This was also reflected in their formulation of safety recommendations. Their findings were then compared with each other (reliability) and with external review (validity). Based on results obtained from the survey instrument distributed after the exercise and focus discussions, the AcciMap approach was generally perceived as intuitive and a potentially relevant toolkit for incident investigations. However, questions were raised particularly regarding the usability (ease of use) in conducting analyses compared RCA techniques.

本文介绍了由苏格兰医疗保健改善组织（HIS）组织的现场研讨会，重点是由国家卫生局（NHS）的患者安全从业人员对正式的AcciMap方法进行评估。招募了参加过不同NHS委员会有关患者安全和风险管理的事件分析的经验丰富的参与者，但没有使用AcciMap方法的先验知识的参与者进行了案例研究分析（错误的患者）（Chassin和Becher in Ann Intern Med 136：826– 833，2002）。经过介绍和培训后，他们随后分为三个小组，每个小组进行独立的案例分析。产生的AcciMap结果表明每个团队确定的相似和不同的贡献因素。他们在制定安全建议时也反映了这一点。然后将他们的发现相互比较（可靠性）和外部审查（有效性）。根据在练习和重点讨论后从调查工具中获得的结果，通常将AcciMap方法视为事件调查的直观和潜在相关工具。但是，在进行与RCA技术比较的分析时，特别是关于可用性（易用性）方面存在疑问。