ArticleJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety2016
Development and Preliminary Testing of the Coordination Process Error Reporting Tool (CPERT), a Prospective Clinical Surveillance Mechanism for Teamwork Errors in the Pediatric Cardiac ICU.
Article in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient safety reporting systems (PSRSs) may not detect teamwork or coordination process errors that affect all dimensions of quality defined by the Institute of Medicine. This study aimed to develop and observe the performance of a novel tool, the Coordination Process Error Reporting Tool (CPERT), as a prospective clinical surveillance mechanism for teamwork errors in the pediatric cardiac ICU.
methodsProviders and parents used the qualitative nominal group technique to identify coordination process error examples. Using categories developed from these discussions, the CPERT was designed and observed to assess agreement among providers and with the PSRS. For each patient at the end of each observed shift, the nurse, frontline clinician, and attending physician were invited to complete the CPERT online. Responses among providers were compared to assess interobserver agreement. Patients with errors identified by the CPERT were matched 1:1 with patients without CPERT errors within the same shift. The PSRS and medical record were reviewed to judge whether a coordination process error occurred and whether patients with CPERT errors differed from controls.
resultsEight categories of errors were identified and incorporated into the CPERT. During 10 shifts (218 patients), the CPERT completion rate was 74%. Fifty-one patient shifts had errors identified by the CPERT (23%); these patients did not differ significantly from those without CPERT- reported errors. Only 5 CPERT-reported errors (10%) were identified by two or more providers. Of the 51 CPERT- reported errors, 43 (84%) were not documented in the PSRS.
conclusionThe CPERT detects coordination process errors not identified through PSRS, making it or similar tools potentially useful for improvement efforts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.