Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29543056›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2018

Contributory factors in surgical incidents as delineated by a confidential reporting system.

F Mushtaq, C O'Driscoll, Fct Smith, D Wilkins, N Kapur, R Lawton

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

F MushtaqSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds , Leeds , UK.
C O'DriscollDivision of Psychiatry, University College London , London , UK.
Fct SmithFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Bristol , UK.
D WilkinsDerriford Hospital , Plymouth , UK.
N KapurResearch Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London , London , UK.
R LawtonSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds , Leeds , UK.
University College London · GBDerriford Hospital · GBUniversity of Bradford · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Confidential reporting systems play a key role in capturing information about adverse surgical events. However, the value of these systems is limited if the reports that are generated are not subjected to systematic analysis. The aim of this study was to provide the first systematic analysis of data from a novel surgical confidential reporting system to delineate contributory factors in surgical incidents and document lessons that can be learned. Methods One-hundred and forty-five patient safety incidents submitted to the UK Confidential Reporting System for Surgery over a 10-year period were analysed using an adapted version of the empirically-grounded Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework. Results The most common factors identified as contributing to reported surgical incidents were cognitive limitations (30.09%), communication failures (16.11%) and a lack of adherence to established policies and procedures (8.81%). The analysis also revealed that adverse events were only rarely related to an isolated, single factor (20.71%) - with the majority of cases involving multiple contributory factors (79.29% of all cases had more than one contributory factor). Examination of active failures - those closest in time and space to the adverse event - pointed to frequent coupling with latent, systems-related contributory factors. Conclusions Specific patterns of errors often underlie surgical adverse events and may therefore be amenable to targeted intervention, including particular forms of training. The findings in this paper confirm the view that surgical errors tend to be multi-factorial in nature, which also necessitates a multi-disciplinary and system-wide approach to bringing about improvements.

Indexed as

ConfidentialityPatient SafetyHumansMedical ErrorsRisk FactorsRisk ManagementUnited KingdomAdverse eventsCognitive factorsContributory factorsLatent contributorsSafety incidents

Identifiers

PMID29543056
PMCPMC5956595
OpenAlexW2789019947

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.