Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27648769›Full record

ArticleThe journal of trauma and acute care surgery2016

Classification and team response to nonroutine events occurring during pediatric trauma resuscitation.

Rachel B Webman, Jennifer L Fritzeen, JaeWon Yang, Grace F Ye, Paul C Mullan, Faisal G Qureshi, Sarah H Parker, Aleksandra Sarcevic, Ivan Marsic, Randall S Burd

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of trauma and acute care surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Intention Mining in Medical Process: A Case Study in Trauma Resuscitation.Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics · 2018
    Article
  12. Process Mining for Trauma Resuscitation.The IEEE intelligent informatics bulletin · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

10 authors.

Rachel B WebmanFrom the Division of Trauma and Burn Surgery, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia (R.B.W., J.L.F., J.Y., R.S.B.); George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia (G.F.Y.); Division of Emergency Medicine and Trauma Services, Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Norfolk, Virginia (P.C.M.); Division of Pediatric Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (F.G.Q.); Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Roanoke, Virginia (S.H.P.); College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.S.); and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey (I.M.).
Jennifer L Fritzeen
JaeWon Yang
Grace F Ye
Paul C Mullan
Faisal G Qureshi
Sarah H Parker
Aleksandra Sarcevic
Ivan Marsic
Randall S Burd

Funding

Intention-aware Recommender System for Improving Trauma Resuscitation OutcomesR01LM011834 · NLM · CHILDREN'S RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BURD, RANDALL S., MARSIC, IVAN · 2014 to 2023
$4.7M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011834
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundErrors directly causing serious harm are rare during pediatric trauma resuscitation, limiting the use of adverse outcome analysis for performance improvement in this setting. Errors not causing harm because of mitigation or chance may have similar causation and are more frequent than those causing adverse outcomes. Analyzing these error types is an alternative to adverse outcome analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify errors of any type during pediatric trauma resuscitation and evaluate team responses to their occurrence.

methodsErrors identified using video analysis were classified as errors of omission or commission and selection errors using input from trauma experts. The responses to error types and error frequency based on patient and event features were compared.

resultsThirty-nine resuscitations were reviewed, identifying 337 errors (range, 2-26 per resuscitation). The most common errors were related to cervical spine stabilization (n = 93, 27.6%). Errors of omission (n = 135) and commission (n = 106) were more common than errors of selection (n = 96). Although 35.9% of all errors were acknowledged and compensation occurred after 43.6%, no response (acknowledgement or compensation) was observed after 51.3% of errors. Errors of omission and commission were more often acknowledged (40.7% and 39.6% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively) and compensated for (50.4% and 47.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively) than selection errors. Response differences between errors of omission and commission were not observed. The number of errors and the number of high-risk errors that occurred did not differ based on patient or event features.

conclusionsErrors are common during pediatric trauma resuscitation. Teams did not respond to most errors, although differences in team response were observed between error types. Determining causation of errors may be an approach for identifying latent safety threats contributing to adverse outcomes during pediatric trauma resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.

Indexed as

ChildFemaleHospitals, PediatricHumansMaleMarylandMedical ErrorsPatient Care TeamPediatricsResuscitationTrauma CentersVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID27648769
PMCPMC5031245

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.