Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26537762›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2015

[Learning from a critical incident reporting system in the pediatric intensive care unit].

M Stocker, T M Berger

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

2 authors.

M StockerNeonatologische und pädiatrische Intensivpflegestation, Kinderspital Luzern, Spitalstraße, 6000, Luzern, Schweiz. martin.stocker@luks.ch.
T M BergerNeonatologische und pädiatrische Intensivpflegestation, Kinderspital Luzern, Spitalstraße, 6000, Luzern, Schweiz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo record and analyze critical incidents is of paramount importance for any organization dedicated to improving patient safety. Therefore, many hospitals have implemented a critical incident reporting system (CIRS). However, the impact, benefits and use of such CIRS systems on patient safety have often been reported to be unsatisfactory.

aimWhat have we learned over the past decade about the effective and optimal use of a CIRS? MATERIAL AND

methodsFollowing the Yorkshire contributory factors framework, the potential benefits of a CIRS are illustrated with selected examples from the neonatal and pediatric intensive care unit. Based on a literature search in PubMed from January 2000 to December 2014 this article also describes critical factors and concepts for the successful use of a CIRS.

resultsA positive mind-set towards errors, high psychological safety and the conviction that a CIRS can be beneficial are important factors to encourage individual healthcare personnel to report critical incidents and learn from errors. On the part of the organization, adequate resources of personnel, systematic analysis of the reported incidents as well as dissemination of the results and implementation of safety improvement strategies are critical factors for the effective use of a CIRS. All incidents with potential relevance for patient safety should be reported. The categorization of the reported incidents facilitates the analysis and identification of relevant conclusions. As an organization dedicated to improve patient safety we have to learn from errors as well as from successes.

conclusionThe successful use of a CIRS depends on the motivation of individual healthcare providers as well as on organizational features that encourage critical incident reporting.

Indexed as

AttitudeError sourceIntensive carePatient safetySafety management

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.