Journal of Neurosurgery, Ahead of Print.
OBJECT Surgery requires careful coordination of multiple team members, each playing a vital role in mitigating errors. Previous studies have focused on eliciting errors from only the attending surgeon, likely missing events observed by other team members. METHODS Surveys were administered to the attending surgeon, resident surgeon, anesthesiologist, and nursing staff immediately following each of 31 cerebrovascular surgeries; participants were instructed to record any deviation from optimal course (DOC). DOCs were categorized and sorted by reporter and perioperative timing, then correlated with delays and outcome measures. RESULTS Errors were recorded in 93.5% of the 31 cases surveyed. The number of errors recorded per case ranged from 0 to 8, with an average of 3.1 ± 2.1 errors (± SD). Overall, technical errors were most common (24.5%), followed by communication (22.4%), management/judgment (16.0%), and equipment (11.7%). The resident surgeon reported the most errors (52.1%), followed by the circulating nurse (31.9%), the attending surgeon (26.6%), and the anesthesiologist (14.9%). The attending and resident surgeons were most likely to report technical errors (52% and 30.6%, respectively), while anesthesiologists and circulating nurses mostly reported anesthesia errors (36%) and communication errors (50%), respectively. The overlap in reported errors was 20.3%. If this study had used only the surveys completed by the attending surgeon, as in prior studies, 72% of equipment errors, 90% of anesthesia and communication errors, and 100% of nursing errors would have been missed. In addition, it would have been concluded that errors occurred in only 45.2% of cases (rather than 93.5%) and that errors resulting in a delay occurred in 3.2% of cases instead of the 74.2% calculated using data from 4 team members. Compiled results from all team members yielded significant correlations between technical DOCs and prolonged hospital stays and reported and actual delays (p = 0.001 and p = 0.028, respectively). CONCLUSIONS This study is the only of its kind to elicit error reporting from multiple members of the operating team, and it demonstrates error is truly in the eye of the beholder—the types and timing of perioperative errors vary based on whom you ask. The authors estimate that previous studies surveying only the attending physician missed up to 75% of perioperative errors. By finding significant correlations between technical DOCs and prolonged hospital stays and reported and actual delays, this study shows that these surveys provide relevant and useful information for improving clinical practice. Overall, the results of this study emphasize that research on medical error must include input from all members of the operating team; it is only by understanding every perspective that surgical staff can begin to efficiently prevent errors, improve patient care and safety, and decrease delays.
from #MedicinebyAlexandrosSfakianakis via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/1lE5uPP
via IFTTT
Αρχειοθήκη ιστολογίου
-
►
2020
(289)
- ► Φεβρουαρίου (28)
-
►
2019
(9071)
- ► Δεκεμβρίου (19)
- ► Σεπτεμβρίου (54)
- ► Φεβρουαρίου (3642)
- ► Ιανουαρίου (3200)
-
►
2018
(39872)
- ► Δεκεμβρίου (3318)
- ► Σεπτεμβρίου (3683)
- ► Φεβρουαρίου (2693)
- ► Ιανουαρίου (3198)
-
►
2017
(41099)
- ► Δεκεμβρίου (3127)
- ► Σεπτεμβρίου (2173)
-
►
2016
(13807)
- ► Δεκεμβρίου (700)
- ► Σεπτεμβρίου (600)
- ► Φεβρουαρίου (1350)
- ► Ιανουαρίου (1400)
-
▼
2015
(1500)
-
▼
Δεκεμβρίου
(1450)
-
▼
Δεκ 05
(46)
- Stroke prevention by direct revascularization for ...
- Growth hormone–secreting macroadenoma of the pitui...
- Metabolic approach for tumor delineation in glioma...
- Comparison of computer-assisted planning and manua...
- Effects of intracranial meningioma location, size,...
- Prospective, multidisciplinary recording of periop...
- Panventriculomegaly with a wide foramen of Magendi...
- Seizures in supratentorial meningioma: a systemati...
- Risk factors for worsened muscle strength after th...
- Phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging reveals ...
- Tumors of the peripheral nervous system: analysis ...
- Hemodynamic and morphological characteristics of u...
- Editorial: Seizures with meningioma
- Letter to the Editor: Innovations in neurosurgery
- A biomechanical comparison of 3 different posterio...
- The unusual presentation of a vascular injury afte...
- Far caudally migrated extraforaminal lumbosacral d...
- Effects of fusion and conservative treatment on di...
- Editorial: Vascular injury during spinal procedures
- Therapiekonzepte der diffusen Peritonitis
- Peritonitis
- Long term results of postoperative Intensity-Modul...
- First evidence of the European wildcat ( Felis sil...
- Incidence of Ascaris suum -specific antibodies in ...
- A mucin-like peptide from Fasciola hepatica induce...
- Georgia Primary Care Providers’ Knowledge of Hered...
- Goodness and Desire
- Why do East Asian children perform so well in PISA...
- In the Long Cool Hour: "The Ethical Project" by Ph...
- Income Inequality, Intergenerational Mobility, and...
- Meaning, signification, and suggestion: Berkeley o...
- Microcarriers’ suspension and flow dynamics in orb...
- Political risk insurance and bilateral investment ...
- Centrifugal partition chromatography in a biorefin...
- Mapping pneumonia research: A systematic analysis ...
- Concurrent sexual partnerships among married Zimba...
- Studies of plug formation in microchannel liquid-l...
- A new small molecule inhibitor of soluble guanylat...
- Reconciling Magnetically Induced Vertigo and Nysta...
- The impact of threat of shock on the framing effec...
- Gastrointestinal stability of peptide drugs
- How beliefs about self-creation inflate value in t...
- Integrating Presentation Into Holistic Site Manage...
- An evaluation of the epidemiology of medication di...
- The evolution of chromatin folding in mammals: a r...
- Cutaneous Leishmaniasis - skin Barrier Properties ...
-
▼
Δεκ 05
(46)
-
▼
Δεκεμβρίου
(1450)
Ετικέτες
Σάββατο 5 Δεκεμβρίου 2015
Prospective, multidisciplinary recording of perioperative errors in cerebrovascular surgery: is error in the eye of the beholder?
Εγγραφή σε:
Σχόλια ανάρτησης (Atom)
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου