Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27174380›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2016

Wrong intraocular lens events-what lessons have we learned? A review of incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System: 2010-2014 versus 2003-2010.

L R Steeples, M Hingorani, D Flanagan, S P Kelly

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. A mixed-methods characterisation of patient safety incidents by primary eye care practitioners.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors.

L R SteeplesManchester Royal Eye Hospital, Central Manchester Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.
M HingoraniMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
D FlanaganMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
S P KellyOphthalmology Department, Royal Bolton Hospital, Bolton NHS Foundation Trust, Bolton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PurposeTo identify the causal factors in wrong intraocular lens (IOL) events from a national data set and to compare with similar historical data (2003-2010) prior to mandatory checklist use, for the purpose of developing strategies to prevent never events.MethodsData from wrong IOL patient safety incidents (PSIs) submitted to the National Reporting and Learning System (2010-2014) were reviewed by thematic analysis and compared with the data previously collected by the group using the same methodology.ResultsOne hundred and seventy eight wrong IOL PSIs were identified. The contributory factors included: transcription errors (n=26); wrong patient biometry (n=21); wrong IOL selection (n=16); changes in planned procedure (n=16); incorrect IOL brought into theatre (n=11); left/right eye selection errors (n=9); communication errors (n=9); and positive/negative IOL power errors (n=9). In 44 PSIs, no causal factor was reported, limiting the learning value of such reports. Compared with the data from previous years, biometry errors were much reduced but IOL transcription and documentation errors were greater, particularly if further checks did not refer to the original source documentation. IOL exchange surgery was reported in 45 cases.ConclusionsThe selection and implantation of the correct IOL is a complex process which is not adequately addressed by existing checking procedures. Despite the introduction of surgical checklists, wrong IOL incidents continue to occur and are probably under-reported. Human or behavioural factors are heavily implicated in these errors and need to be addressed by novel approaches, including simulation training. There is also scope to further improve the quality and detail of incident reporting and analysis to enhance patient safety.

Indexed as

Consumer Product SafetyPatient SafetyProsthesis FailureBiometryChecklistHumansLenses, IntraocularLens Implantation, IntraocularMedical ErrorsPhacoemulsificationRetrospective StudiesState MedicineUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID27174380
PMCPMC4985682

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.