Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29404658›Full record

ArticleDer Anaesthesist2018

[Miscommunication as a risk focus in patient safety : Work process analysis in prehospital emergency care].

S Wilk, L Siegl, K Siegl, C Hohenstein

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2018. 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

S WilkKlinik X für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Schmerztherapie und Notfallmedizin, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin, Scharnhorststraße 13, 10115, Berlin, Deutschland. sophiawilk@bundeswehr.org.
L Siegl
K SieglKlinik X für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Schmerztherapie und Notfallmedizin, Bundeswehrkrankenhaus Berlin, Scharnhorststraße 13, 10115, Berlin, Deutschland.
C HohensteinZentrum für Notfallmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Deutschland.
Bundeswehrkrankenhaus · DEJena University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn an analysis of a critical incident reporting system (CIRS) in out-of-hospital emergency medicine, it was demonstrated that in 30% of cases deficient communication led to a threat to patients; however, the analysis did not show what exactly the most dangerous work processes are. Current research shows the impact of poor communication on patient safety.

objectivesAn out-of-hospital workflow analysis collects data about key work processes and risk areas. The analysis points out confounding factors for a sufficient communication. Almost 70% of critical incidents are based on human factors. Factors, such as communication and teamwork have an impact but fatigue, noise levels and illness also have a major influence. MATERIAL AND

methods(I) CIRS database analysis The workflow analysis was based on 247 CIRS cases. This was completed by participant observation and interviews with emergency doctors and paramedics. The 247 CIRS cases displayed 282 communication incidents, which are categorized into 6 subcategories of miscommunication. One CIRS case can be classified into different categories if more communication incidents were validated by the reviewers and four experienced emergency physicians sorted these cases into six subcategories. (II) Workflow analysis The workflow analysis was carried out between 2015 and 2016 in Jena and Berlin, Germany. The focal point of research was to find accumulation of communication risks in different parts of prehospital patient care. During 30 h driving with emergency ambulances, the author interviewed 12 members of the emergency medical service of which 5 were emergency physicians and 7 paramedics. A total of 11 internal medicine cases and one automobile accident were monitored. After patient care the author asked in a 15-min interview if miscommunication or communication incidents occurred.

results(I) CIRS analysis Between 2005 and 2015, 845 reports were reported to the database. The experts identified 247 incident reports with communication failure. All communication aspects were analyzed and classified. We identified 282 communication incidents. (II) Workflow analysis The analysis showed three phases of prehospital patient care: 1. incoming emergency call and dispatch of ambulance service, 2. prehospital treatment, 3. transportation to a hospital. Overall, the number of incidences is increasing as a consequence of parallel workflows. Category 1 was particularly significant and predominantly, paramedics criticized that emergency physicians did not acknowledge their advice (n = 73 vs. n = 9). Category 3 with n = 63, category 4 with n = 20 and category 2 with n = 13 were the major reasons for incidents.

conclusionA better interface communication helps to coordinate patient transfer and is an option for optimizing resources. Frequent training in communication is an option to avoid incidents.

Indexed as

Accidents, TrafficAllied Health PersonnelAmbulancesBerlinDatabases, FactualEmergency Medical ServicesHumansPatient SafetyPhysiciansRisk ManagementWorkflowCommunicationIncident reportingPatient safetyRisk managementWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID29404658
OpenAlexW2789343278

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.