Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25632301›Full record

ArticlePatient safety in surgery2014

The impact of a standardized incident reporting system in the perioperative setting: a single center experience on 2,563 'near-misses' and adverse events.

Anita J Heideveld-Chevalking, Hiske Calsbeek, Johan Damen, Hein Gooszen, André P Wolff

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Safety culture in the operating room-an overview].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Learning as we grow, growing as we learn.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Anita J Heideveld-ChevalkingDepartment of Operating Theatres, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, Internal postal code 738, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hiske CalsbeekDepartment of IQ Healthcare, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Johan DamenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Hein GooszenDepartment of Operating Theatres, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, Internal postal code 738, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
André P WolffDepartment of Operating Theatres, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, Internal postal code 738, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands ; Department of Anesthesiology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reduction of perioperative harm is a major priority of in-hospital health care and the reporting of incidents and their causes is an important source of information to improve perioperative patient safety. We explored the number, nature and causes of voluntarily reported perioperative incidents in order to highlight the areas where further efforts are required to improve patient safety.

methodsData from the Hospital Incident Management System (HIMS), entered in the period from July 2009 to July 2012, were analyzed in a Dutch university hospital. Employees in the perioperatve field filled out a semi-structured digital form of the reporting system. The risk classification of the reported adverse events and 'near misses' was based on the estimated patient consequences and the risk of recurrence, according to national guidelines. Predefined reported incident causes were categorized as human, organizational, technical and patient related.

resultsIn total, 2,563 incidents (1,300 adverse events and 1,263 'near-miss' events) were reported during 67,360 operations. Reporters were anesthesia, operating room and recovery nurses (37%), ward nurses (31%), physicians (17%), administrative personnel (5%), others (6%) and unmentioned (3%). A total of 414 (16%) adverse events had patient consequences (which affected 0,6% of all surgery patients), estimated as catastrophic in 2, very serious in 34, serious in 105, and marginally serious in 273 cases. Shortcomings in communication was the most frequent reported type of incidents. Non-compliance with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs: instructions, regulations, protocols and guidelines) was reported with 877 (34%) of incident reports. In total, 1,194 (27%) voluntarily reported causes were SOP-related, mainly human-based (79%) and partially organization-based (21%). SOP-related incidents were not associated with more patient consequences than other voluntarily reported incidents. Furthermore 'mistake or forgotten' (15%) and 'communication problems' (11%) were frequently reported causes of incidents.

conclusionsThe analysis of voluntarily reported perioperative incidents identified an association between perioperative patient safety problems and human failure, such as SOP non-compliance, mistakes, forgetting, and shortcomings in communication. The data suggest that professionals themselves indicate that SOP compliance in combination with other human failures provide room for improvement.

Indexed as

Guideline adherenceHospital incident reportingPatient safetyPerioperative careQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID25632301
PMCPMC4308849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.