Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27623822›Full record

ReviewEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2017

Patient safety in otolaryngology: a descriptive review.

Julian Danino, Jameel Muzaffar, Chris Metcalfe, Chris Coulson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 84% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Examining Diagnostic Errors in the Field of Otorhinolaryngology within the Challenging Landscape of Limited-Resource Healthcare.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2024
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julian DaninoQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH, England, UK. juliandanino@hotmail.co.uk.
Jameel MuzaffarQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH, England, UK.
Chris MetcalfeQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH, England, UK.
Chris CoulsonQueen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TH, England, UK.
Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human evaluation and judgement may include errors that can have disastrous results. Within medicine and healthcare there has been slow progress towards major changes in safety. Healthcare lags behind other specialised industries, such as aviation and nuclear power, where there have been significant improvements in overall safety, especially in reducing risk of errors. Following several high profile cases in the USA during the 1990s, a report titled "To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System" was published. The report extrapolated that in the USA approximately 50,000 to 100,000 patients may die each year as a result of medical errors. Traditionally otolaryngology has always been regarded as a "safe specialty". A study in the USA in 2004 inferred that there may be 2600 cases of major morbidity and 165 deaths within the specialty. MEDLINE via PubMed interface was searched for English language articles published between 2000 and 2012. Each combined two or three of the keywords noted earlier. Limitations are related to several generic topics within patient safety in otolaryngology. Other areas covered have been current relevant topics due to recent interest or new advances in technology. There has been a heightened awareness within the healthcare community of patient safety; it has become a major priority. Focus has shifted from apportioning blame to prevention of the errors and implementation of patient safety mechanisms in healthcare delivery. Type of Errors can be divided into errors due to action and errors due to knowledge or planning. In healthcare there are several factors that may influence adverse events and patient safety. Although technology may improve patient safety, it also introduces new sources of error. The ability to work with people allows for the increase in safety netting. Team working has been shown to have a beneficial effect on patient safety. Any field of work involving human decision-making will always have a risk of error. Within Otolaryngology, although patient safety has evolved along similar themes as other surgical specialties; there are several specific high-risk areas. Medical error is a common problem and its human cost is of immense importance. Steps to reduce such errors require the identification of high-risk practice within a complex healthcare system. The commitment to patient safety and quality improvement in medicine depend on personal responsibility and professional accountability.

Indexed as

OtolaryngologyPatient SafetyAllied Health PersonnelEmergenciesHumansLasersMedical ErrorsQuality ImprovementAllied healthcare professionalsDiagnostic errorDisinfection of equipmentLaser safetyMedical errorMedication errorOtolaryngologyPatient safetyPreventable adverse eventProvision of emergency serviceWrong-site surgery

Identifiers

PMID27623822
OpenAlexW2520882170

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.