A 2006 ethnography of a hospital operating department (Waring, McDonald and Harrison) showed that patient safety is shaped by tightly coupled, inter-departmental relationships: small failures in exchanges with wards, sterile services, the high dependency unit, radiology and pathology propagate into time pressure and unsafe frontline adaptations, beyond the control of departmental managers. The paper's closing discussion suggested that greater attention be given to loosening these couplings to introduce slack and redundancy into the functioning of the network, while noting Perrow's observation that increased redundancy is difficult to achieve where processes have 'common determinants of success' — the source of uncertainty can affect both the primary and the back-up system; it left open whether such redesign is feasible under these shared-resource constraints and prevents small failures from propagating, what planning and management beyond the individual department would implement it, and how workload planning and theatre timetabling should be informed by wider systems factors, and it observed that cultural norms interpreting teamwork as speeding up may be difficult to influence while system-level actions can be taken more immediately. Later literature — occupancy tipping-point studies, hospital redundancy research, resilience-engineering implementation, robust operating-room scheduling, and checklist and speaking-up studies — documents the safety value of residual slack but does not demonstrate, or refute, the feasibility and propagation-preventing effect of deliberate system-level decoupling under real resource and governance constraints; whether such decoupling is feasible and prevents propagation therefore remains open.

Background

Modern patient-safety programmes concentrate on the immediate work environment — checklists, team training, incident reporting — treating the hospital department as the natural unit of improvement. An influential counterpoint came from an 18-month ethnography of the operating department (the suite of operating theatres and recovery areas where surgery is performed) of a large teaching hospital in North-West England, reported by Waring, McDonald and Harrison (2006), who analysed their observations through normal accident theory (Perrow, 1984). In that theory, 'normal accidents' are the expected products of systems that combine interactive complexity (failure pathways that are not obvious to operators) with tight coupling (task sequences that are time-dependent and cannot be delayed or reordered without knock-on effects). The ethnography portrayed the operating department as an 'organisational hub': its work depended on tightly timed exchanges with surgical wards (patient preparation and transfer), the Sterile Services Unit (the hospital unit that sterilises and supplies surgical instrument trays), the High Dependency Unit (the unit providing post-operative intensive-care beds), radiology (diagnostic images) and histopathology (specimen analysis). Failures in these exchanges took three recurring forms — delays, miscommunications and missing transactions — and produced time pressure, last-minute rescheduling and uncertainty inside theatres, to which staff responded by working faster, improvising and omitting routine safeguards such as instrument counts; in the authors' phrase, staff focused on working quickly rather than working safely. The paper concluded that safety analysis must extend beyond individual practice and the immediate work environment to these deeply structured organisational systems, and acknowledged that departmental managers alone cannot control them.

This conclusion sharpened a tension already visible in the safety literature. Cook and Rasmussen (2005) described how production pressure drives healthcare systems to 'go solid', eroding the buffers that loose coupling once provided, and Amalberti et al. (2005) identified structural barriers that prevent healthcare from copying the ultra-safe design of aviation or nuclear power. In reliability engineering, redundancy (duplicate channels or back-up resources) is the classic defence against failure propagation, and organizational slack (recoverable resources in excess of the minimum needed to run the current workload) is what lets a system absorb variability; but redundant channels are defeated when they share common causes — in hospitals, the same scarce staff, beds and equipment typically serve both primary and back-up functions, so adding 'redundancy' often just adds demand on the same underlying determinants. Parallel literatures pursued the neighbouring remedies. High-reliability-organisation thinking and resilience engineering (the study and support of how systems adapt to absorb disturbances rather than fail) imported organisational designs from ultra-safe industries into healthcare. A large operations-research literature built stochastic and robust operating-room scheduling models that insert buffers against uncertainty in surgery durations and emergency arrivals. A culture-first literature sought to make it safe for junior staff to voice safety concerns ('speaking up'), drawing on the concept of psychological safety (a shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking). What none of these strands established is whether a real hospital, under its actual resource constraints and governance structures, can deliberately loosen couplings or create genuine slack and redundancy across departments, and whether doing so prevents small inter-departmental failures from propagating into system-wide disruptions.

Problem Statement

It remains unknown whether patient safety in tightly coupled hospital organisations can be improved by deliberate system-level redesign rather than only by local, team-level measures. Its load-bearing core is whether it is feasible, in real hospitals operating under shared resource constraints — where primary and back-up capacity draw on the same limited staff, beds and equipment, so that, in the source's phrase (following Perrow), processes have 'common determinants of success': the source of uncertainty can affect both the primary and the back-up system — to loosen tight inter-departmental couplings or introduce meaningful slack and redundancy, and whether doing so measurably reduces the propagation of small inter-departmental failures (late arrivals, miscommunications, missing exchanges) into system-wide disruptions and unsafe frontline adaptations such as omitted safety checks. The same question also asks what planning and management arrangements beyond the individual department are needed to take account of the wider network relationships, given that the inter-department and organisational factors shaping safety are perhaps beyond the scope of departmental management; and how workload planning and theatre timetabling for the operating department should be informed by an appreciation of wider systems factors — including the documented upstream delay patterns (ward preparation and transfer, High Dependency Unit bed availability, Sterile Services Unit instrument turnaround) — rather than focusing on discrete elements and simply monitoring actual versus planned time for operations. These two implementation questions are jointly posed with the feasibility-and-propagation core as a single scientific question. As context, the source observes that cultural norms interpreting teamwork as speeding up may be difficult to influence, while system-level actions can be taken more immediately.

References

  1. Waring, J., McDonald, R., & Harrison, S. (2006). Safety and complexity: inter-departmental relationships as a threat to patient safety in the operating department. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 20(3), 227-242. DOI: 10.1108/14777260610662753. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260610662753
  2. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies. Princeton University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781400828494. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828494 (original edition Basic Books, 1984)
  3. Cook, R., & Rasmussen, J. (2005). 'Going solid': a model of system dynamics and consequences for patient safety. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(2), 130-134. DOI: 10.1136/qshc.2003.009530. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2003.009530
  4. Amalberti, R., Auroy, Y., Berwick, D., & Barach, P. (2005). Five system barriers to achieving ultrasafe health care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 142(9), 756-764. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-142-9-200505030-00012. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-142-9-200505030-00012
  5. Denton, B., Viapiano, J., & Vogl, A. (2006). Optimization of surgery sequencing and scheduling decisions under uncertainty. Health Care Management Science, 10(1), 13-24. DOI: 10.1007/s10729-006-9005-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-006-9005-4
  6. Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941-966. DOI: 10.1002/job.413. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413
  7. Benn, J., Healey, A. N., & Hollnagel, E. (2008). Improving performance reliability in surgical systems. Cognition, Technology & Work, 10(4), 323-333. DOI: 10.1007/s10111-007-0092-x. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-007-0092-x (published online first 1 August 2007)
  8. Hans, E., Wullink, G., van Houdenhoven, M., & Kazemier, G. (2008). Robust surgery loading. European Journal of Operational Research, 185(3), 1038-1050. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.08.022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.08.022
  9. Haynes, A. B., Weiser, T. G., Berry, W. R., Lipsitz, S. R., Breizat, A.-H. S., Dellinger, E. P., Herbosa, T., Joseph, S., Kibatala, P. L., Lapitan, M. C. M., Merry, A. F., Moorthy, K., Reznick, R. K., Taylor, B., & Gawande, A. A. (2009). A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(5), 491-499. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa0810119. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0810119
  10. Jeffs, L., Tregunno, D., MacMillan, K., & Espin, S. (2009). Building clinical and organizational resilience to reconcile safety threats, tensions and trade-offs: insights from theory and evidence. Healthcare Quarterly, 12(sp), 75-79. DOI: 10.12927/HCQ.2009.20971. https://doi.org/10.12927/HCQ.2009.20971
  11. Cardoen, B., Demeulemeester, E., & Belien, J. (2010). Operating room planning and scheduling: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 201(3), 921-932. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.04.011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.04.011
  12. Madsen, F., Ladelund, S., & Linneberg, A. (2014). High levels of bed occupancy associated with increased inpatient and thirty-day hospital mortality in Denmark. Health Affairs, 33(7), 1236-1244. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1303. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2013.1303
  13. Urbach, D. R., Govindarajan, A., Saskin, R., Wilton, A. S., & Baxter, N. N. (2014). Introduction of surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada. New England Journal of Medicine, 370(11), 1029-1038. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1308261. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1308261
  14. Kuntz, L., Mennicken, R., & Scholtes, S. (2015). Stress on the ward: evidence of safety tipping points in hospitals. Management Science, 61(4), 754-771. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2014.1917. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1917
  15. Tolk, J. N., Cantu, J., & Beruvides, M. (2015). High reliability organization research: a literature review for health care. Engineering Management Journal, 27(4), 218-237. DOI: 10.1080/10429247.2015.1105087. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2015.1105087
  16. Van Riet, C., & Demeulemeester, E. (2015). Trade-offs in operating room planning for electives and emergencies: a review. Operations Research for Health Care, 7, 52-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.orhc.2015.05.005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2015.05.005
  17. Berry Jaeker, J. A., & Tucker, A. L. (2017). Past the point of speeding up: the negative effects of workload saturation on efficiency and patient severity. Management Science, 63(4), 1042-1062. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2387. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2387
  18. Saurin, T. A., & Werle, N. J. B. (2017). A framework for the analysis of slack in socio-technical systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 167, 439-451. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2017.06.023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2017.06.023
  19. Martinez, W., Lehmann, L. S., Thomas, E. J., Etchegaray, J. M., Shelburne, J. T., Hickson, G. B., Brady, D. W., Schleyer, A. M., Best, J. A., May, N. B., & Bell, S. K. (2017). Speaking up about traditional and professionalism-related patient safety threats: a national survey of interns and residents. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(11), 869-880. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006284. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006284
  20. Anderson, J. E., Ross, A. J., Back, J., Duncan, M., Snell, P., Walsh, K., & Jaye, P. (2016). Implementing resilience engineering for healthcare quality improvement using the CARE model: a feasibility study protocol. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 2, article 61. DOI: 10.1186/s40814-016-0103-x. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-016-0103-x
  21. Tay, H. L., & Singh, P. J. (2021). Revisiting redundancy in hospitals: a case-based research study. Health Care Management Review, 46(3), 185-195. DOI: 10.1097/hmr.0000000000000257. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000257 (published online first 27 June 2019)
  22. Anderson, J., & Ross, A. (2026). The CARE model. In Translating Resilience into Healthcare Practice (pp. 8-14). CRC Press. DOI: 10.1201/9781003489689-3. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003489689-3