Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

8.3K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
8.3K
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization01:12

Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization

9.3K
Error is the deviation of the obtained result from the true, expected value or the estimated central value. Errors are expressed in absolute or relative terms.
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
9.3K
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

14.2K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
14.2K
Contaminants and Errors01:16

Contaminants and Errors

316
Effective sample preparation is crucial for accurate and reliable laboratory analysis. During this process, two significant sources of error can arise: concentration bias from improper sample splitting and contamination caused by methods used to reduce particle size, such as grinding or homogenization. Identifying and minimizing these potential errors is crucial to ensuring the validity of the analysis.
Another key consideration is determining the appropriate number of samples required to...
316
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision03:37

Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

99.1K
Scientists typically make repeated measurements of a quantity to ensure the quality of their findings and to evaluate both the precision and the accuracy of their results. Measurements are said to be precise if they yield very similar results when repeated in the same manner. A measurement is considered accurate if it yields a result that is very close to the true or the accepted value. Precise values agree with each other; accurate values agree with a true value. 
99.1K
Statistical Analysis: Overview01:11

Statistical Analysis: Overview

13.9K
When we take repeated measurements on the same or replicated samples, we will observe inconsistencies in the magnitude. These inconsistencies are called errors. To categorize and characterize these results and their errors, the researcher can use statistical analysis to determine the quality of the measurements and/or suitability of the methods.
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
13.9K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Do not blame the organizational culture for poor performance.

International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care·2025
Same author

Improving health system responses when patients are harmed: a protocol for a multistage mixed-methods study.

BMJ open·2024
Same author

Future-proofing structural design of an acute mental health inpatient unit.

Australasian psychiatry : bulletin of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists·2023
Same author

Why Many Quality Improvement Initiatives Die a Quick Death.

American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality·2020
Same author

Case management, care-coordination and casework in community mental health services.

Asian journal of psychiatry·2020
Same author

Role of family and carers in compulsory mental health treatment.

The International journal of social psychiatry·2014

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 29, 2025

Detection of Targetable Alterations in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer using Next-generation Sequencing
05:17

Detection of Targetable Alterations in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer using Next-generation Sequencing

Published on: October 10, 2025

270

Are we using the right tools to manage variation, errors and omissions?

Dinesh K Arya1

  • 1ACT Health Directorate, 2 Bowes Street, Phillip, ACT 2606, Australia.

International Journal for Quality in Health Care : Journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
|January 30, 2020
PubMed
Summary

Healthcare processes carry risks of variability, potentially compromising patient safety and care quality. Current quality improvement tools may be underutilized, hindering opportunities for essential enhancements in patient care delivery.

Keywords:
checklistsincidentqualityroot cause analysis

More Related Videos

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.7K
Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
10:39

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

937

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 29, 2025

Detection of Targetable Alterations in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer using Next-generation Sequencing
05:17

Detection of Targetable Alterations in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer using Next-generation Sequencing

Published on: October 10, 2025

270
Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements
10:22

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

8.7K
Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
10:39

Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning

Published on: August 29, 2025

937

Area of Science:

  • Healthcare quality improvement
  • Patient safety research
  • Clinical process analysis

Background:

  • Variability is an inherent risk in all processes, including healthcare delivery.
  • Unmanaged variability can lead to errors, omissions, and compromised patient safety and care quality.
  • Existing quality improvement (QI) methodologies are widely adopted in healthcare settings.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To highlight the persistent risk of variability in healthcare.
  • To examine the potential for underutilization or inappropriate application of current QI tools.
  • To underscore the missed opportunities for improving healthcare quality and patient safety.

Main Methods:

  • Review of common quality improvement tools (e.g., incident reporting, root cause analysis, checklists).
  • Analysis of the appropriate and effective application of these tools in healthcare.
  • Identification of factors contributing to the suboptimal use of QI methods.

Main Results:

  • Healthcare processes are susceptible to variability, impacting patient safety.
  • Despite the availability of QI tools, their appropriate use is not guaranteed.
  • Suboptimal application of QI tools represents a significant missed opportunity for enhancing care quality.

Conclusions:

  • Effective implementation and appropriate utilization of QI tools are crucial for mitigating healthcare variability.
  • Addressing the gap in the appropriate use of existing QI methods is essential for improving patient safety and care quality.
  • Healthcare organizations must ensure the proper application of tools like incident reporting and root cause analysis to realize their full potential in quality enhancement.