A qualitative study of the intra-hospital variations in incident reporting.
(17/40)
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between variations in hospital incident reporting and the corresponding attitudes and participation of medical professionals. METHODS: An in-depth qualitative case study using semi-structured interviews with hospital managers and clinicians. Twelve participants were theoretically sampled based on their involvement with clinical risk management and patient safety. Twenty-five medical physicians and four risk leads were selected from the specialist hospital departments of Obstetrics, Anaesthesia, General Surgery, Acute Medicine, and Rehabilitation. The data were analysed to develop a descriptive account of the intra-hospital variations in reporting and the associated attitudes of physicians. SETTING: The research was conducted in a single acute National Health Service Hospital Trust in the English Midlands. RESULTS: The qualitative data revealed significant variations in the intra-hospital organization of incident reporting between medical specialities that corresponded with the attitudes and participation of medical staff. Specifically, it was found that medical doctors were more inclined to report incidents where the process of reporting was localized and integrated within medical rather than managerial systems of quality improvement. Underlying these variations, it is suggested that medical reporting is more likely when physicians have greater control or ownership of incident reporting, as this fosters confidence in the purpose of reporting, in particular its capacity to make meaningful service improvements whilst maintaining a sense of collegiality and professionalism. (+info)
Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects.
(18/40)
BACKGROUND: Ineffective team communication is frequently at the root of medical error. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of communication failures in the operating room (OR) and to classify their effects. This study was part of a larger project to develop a team checklist to improve communication in the OR. METHODS: Trained observers recorded 90 hours of observation during 48 surgical procedures. Ninety four team members participated from anesthesia (16 staff, 6 fellows, 3 residents), surgery (14 staff, 8 fellows, 13 residents, 3 clerks), and nursing (31 staff). Field notes recording procedurally relevant communication events were analysed using a framework which considered the content, audience, purpose, and occasion of a communication exchange. A communication failure was defined as an event that was flawed in one or more of these dimensions. RESULTS: 421 communication events were noted, of which 129 were categorized as communication failures. Failure types included "occasion" (45.7% of instances) where timing was poor; "content" (35.7%) where information was missing or inaccurate, "purpose" (24.0%) where issues were not resolved, and "audience" (20.9%) where key individuals were excluded. 36.4% of failures resulted in visible effects on system processes including inefficiency, team tension, resource waste, workaround, delay, patient inconvenience and procedural error. CONCLUSION: Communication failures in the OR exhibited a common set of problems. They occurred in approximately 30% of team exchanges and a third of these resulted in effects which jeopardized patient safety by increasing cognitive load, interrupting routine, and increasing tension in the OR. (+info)
Methodological approaches to anaesthetists' workload in the operating theatre.
(19/40)
This review examines the basic concepts of workload and methods of measuring them. The components of anaesthetists' operating room activities, and the factors contributing to workload, are analysed using an ergonomic-based model for technological environments. The available evidence on the relationship between workload and training and supervision is presented and the effect of workload on the quality and safety of anaesthetic care is reviewed. There is, as yet, only a small body of work examining workload and its effects in anaesthesia. While studies have identified the general pattern of workload in relation to the different stages of the perioperative period, measurement, particularly of overlapping tasks, is still evolving. It is clear, however, that induction and emergence are the most intense periods of both practical and 'non-technical' aspects of work. Allocation of attention to a range of tasks simultaneously is a key characteristic of anaesthetic practice. Experienced staff appear to show 'spare capacity' in performance during routine cases, which, we suggest, allows them an attentional 'safety margin' should adverse events occur. The effects of production pressure and mental 'overload' remain speculative and so practical recommendations for anaesthetic staffing, both in terms of numbers and matching skills to surgical demand, cannot be made. The potential for delegation of tasks, for instance to non-physician anaesthetists, can also not be made on evidence-based grounds. Strategies for active management of workload may be useful in practice. (+info)
Supervision and responsibility: The Royal College of Anaesthetists National Audit.
(20/40)
BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Anaesthetists audited consultant supervision and responsibility in anaesthesia in the UK during 2003. METHODS: Consultants (supervising) and non-consultants (supervised) were surveyed on their attitudes to supervision, experience of their own hospital system for supervision and of induction for new starters. Local coordination was achieved through anaesthesia audit coordinators who provided information on local policies, induction programmes and anaesthesia charts. Supervision was audited over a 5-day period. RESULTS: 135 departments of anaesthesia took part (43% of 315 departments), questionnaires being returned by 2297 anaesthetists. Anaesthesia record charts in use do not meet criteria considered desirable locally. Most trainees, but less than half staff grade/associate specialists, received an induction programme, often not supported by written documentation. Consultants find conflicting demands of service and supervision difficult. Many work in systems which do not permit providing direct, immediate support to those supervised. Most anaesthetists think supervision is very important. Around half disagree with national guidance that every NHS patient should have a named consultant. Two per cent of non-consultants during the audit period reported assistance from consultants not being obtainable soon enough. CONCLUSIONS: This audit found departure from standards and the potential for risk and failure. New standards may be needed regarding anaesthesia record sheets, induction, accountability, when to seek help and care of sick patients. Supervision systems in over 40% of hospitals need review to ensure they provide a named consultant and immediate direct support for elective lists. (+info)
Does parallel workflow impact anesthesia quality?
(21/40)
Redesigns of workflow to allow parallel processing of OR tasks in the Operating Room of the Future at Massachusetts General Hospital have reduced non-operative time, increasing OR throughput. Automatically gathered anesthesia times were studied to address concerns that the new process constricted anesthesia work time. Upon close examination, it was found that 'Induction Time' was the only time interval not impacted by extraneous influences that invalidated other metrics based on the automatic data. 'Induction Time' increased in the Operating Room of the Future as compared to Standard Operating Rooms. (+info)
Implementation of outpatient preoperative evaluation clinics: facilitating and limiting factors.
(22/40)
A comparison of obstetric and nonobstetric anesthesia malpractice claims.
(24/40)
Malpractice claims filed against anesthesiologists for care involving obstetric (OB) anesthesia (n = 190) were taken from the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Closed Claims Database and compared to claims not involving OB cases (n = 1351). The most common complications in the OB claims were (percentage of all OB claims): maternal death (22%), newborn brain damage (20%), and headache (12%). In contrast, the most common complications in the nonobstetric (non-OB) group were (percentage of all non-OB claims): death (39%), nerve damage (16%), and brain damage (13%). The group of OB claims contained a proportionately greater number of minor injuries, such as headache, backache, pain during anesthesia, and emotional injury (32%) compared to the non-OB claims (4%). Complications due to aspiration and convulsions were more common among the OB cases. The standard of care was judged to have been met in 46% of OB and 39% of non-OB claims. This difference is not statistically significant. Claims involving general anesthesia were more frequently associated with severe injuries and resulted in higher payments than did claims involving regional anesthesia. Payments were made in a similar proportion of OB and non-OB claims (53 and 59%, respectively). For cases in which payments were made, the median payment for OB claims was significantly greater ($203,000) than for non-OB claims ($85,000; P less than or equal to 0.05). (+info)