Improving Healthcare by Embracing Systems Theory (2024)

The development of Systems Theory is largely accredited to the Austrian biologist, Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Beginning in the 1920s, von Beralanffy lectured on the limitations of the Newtonian concepts of closed systems and linear cause-and-effect. In his seminal work in 1969, von Bertalanffy described what has since become known as General Systems Theory, the concept that systems cannot be reduced to a series of parts functioning in isolation, but that, in order to understand the whole, one must understand the interrelations between these parts.¹

Over the last half century, Systems Theory has spread across disciplines, from psychology to engineering. By the 1980s and '90s management science began to apply Systems Theory broadly.² Application of this theory rests on the assumption that most individuals strive to do good work, but that they are acted upon by diverse influences, and that functional and efficient systems not only account for, but also embrace, these influences. Causal Analysis based on Systems Theory asserts that when errors occur, one ought not focus solely on individual failings, but on the surroundings that allowed such events to transpire. It further asserts that outcomes can be influenced by smart interventions, developed after studying common patterns and behaviors across time.

The underlying principles of Systems Theory should seem largely intuitive to healthcare professionals. While many of us spend considerable time siloed, focusing on the functionings of individual organs, our jobs necessitate that we think about how each intricate organ system effects, and is effected by, its environment. We think about how renal function is affected by the squeeze of the cardiac muscle, but simultaneously by the medications a patient is taking, the sepsis the body is fighting, and the preexisting renal disease. We think about how a transplanted organ is affected not only by immunosuppressants and other medical conditions, but also by a patient's social environment, support network, and developmental stage. There is no debate, for example, that the risk of transplant rejection is higher among teenagers than among young children who are not yet trying to assert their independence.

In the 1999 landmark report to Congress, To Err Is Human, The Institute of Medicine advocated that quality improvement attention be turned on the healthcare system as a whole.³ That was over 15 years ago. So why, then, has healthcare been so slow to adopt Systems Theory? Some have argued that healthcare is simply really, really complex, and that complexity is “inconvenient” for managers.² But healthcare is hardly the most complex of industries, and so this inadequately explains the relative dearth of progress.⁴

The most compelling explanation I have encountered relates to medicine's culture. Until recently, medical education and socialization have emphasized the responsibility of the individual above all else.⁵ In a journalistic exchange, Dr. Nancy Leveson and Dr. Sidney Dekker, coauthors of When a Checklist Is Not Enough⁶, engaged with Dr. Philip Levitt, a retired Neurosurgeon and former Hospital Chief of Staff, regarding the application of Systems Theory in healthcare.^7-9 Dr. Levitt argued that 2-3% of healthcare professionals are simply bad seeds, and that the key to quality improvement lies in removing these individuals from the field. He had strong literature to support his claims (though some might question the risk adjustment methodologies employed). But Dr. Levitt failed to understand that individual accountability and Systems Theory are not mutually exclusive.^{8, 9} One can hold individuals responsible where appropriate, while simultaneously looking holistically at the system to identify weakness that allow for, or even enable, adverse events.

It is convenient to think about management as a linear process, each adverse event with an identifiable, antecedent cause. But how do we effect sustainable change based on this sort of simplistic view? In the manuscript by Raman and colleagues⁶, the authors describe four separate adverse events, stemming from inadequate training of four different covering nurses. Should the managers in these cases have disciplined the nurses for their lack of knowledge when the nurses were forced to cover procedures for which they were not trained? Were the managers culpable, having placed ill-prepared nurses in cases that needed to be staffed, given that no one else was available for coverage? Perhaps the physicians, or their administrative assistants, should be required to check nursing availability prior to booking procedures? Focusing too intently on the specifics of individual cases often misplaces blame and leaves important questions unanswered. Applying Systems Theory, in contrast, lumps adverse events together across types, and allows us to detect patterns and system failures. While we should not ignore individual accountability, as an industry we need to become more self-reflective and devote our efforts to designing smarter systems that protect against inevitable fallibility.

Acknowledgments

Funding sources and possible conflicts: Dr. Anderson is supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (KL2 TR000081).

Footnotes

References