OBJECTIVE: To assess whether cross-checking of the physician ICU transfer report by ICU nurses may reduce transfer report errors. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study with random selection (according to patient registration code) of ICU transfer reports. SETTING: Eight-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: ICU transfer reports of 123 patients were randomly selected at discharge from the ICU between November 2006 and February 2007. INTERVENTIONS: Physician ICU transfer reports were cross-checked by nurses using defined review criteria. Inter-rater agreement (between nurses and the head of ICU) was assessed by kappa-values, and was excellent overall (0.9). All intercepted errors (100%) were consequently corrected by the interns. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Out of 123 transfer reports, 76 (62%) were affected by at least one error. Among 305 intercepted errors, 247 were prescription errors (26% of all prescriptions), 45 involved proposed procedures, and 13 were deficient in updating diagnoses. Most of the errors (248/305, 81%) were classified as simple, 43 (14%) as serious, or 14 (5%) as critical. Thirty-five (28%) transfer reports were considered potentially harmful (i.e., affected by at least one critical/serious error). In a multivariate model, only the number of medications included in the transfer report was associated with the occurrence of at least one critical/serious error. CONCLUSIONS: Errors in ICU transfer reports are frequent and may be potentially harmful. ICU nurses may help to effectively and accurately intercept those inaccuracies, and therefore reduce the exportation of errors from the ICU to the ward.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether cross-checking of the physician ICU transfer report by ICU nurses may reduce transfer report errors. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study with random selection (according to patient registration code) of ICU transfer reports. SETTING: Eight-bed multidisciplinary intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: ICU transfer reports of 123 patients were randomly selected at discharge from the ICU between November 2006 and February 2007. INTERVENTIONS: Physician ICU transfer reports were cross-checked by nurses using defined review criteria. Inter-rater agreement (between nurses and the head of ICU) was assessed by kappa-values, and was excellent overall (0.9). All intercepted errors (100%) were consequently corrected by the interns. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Out of 123 transfer reports, 76 (62%) were affected by at least one error. Among 305 intercepted errors, 247 were prescription errors (26% of all prescriptions), 45 involved proposed procedures, and 13 were deficient in updating diagnoses. Most of the errors (248/305, 81%) were classified as simple, 43 (14%) as serious, or 14 (5%) as critical. Thirty-five (28%) transfer reports were considered potentially harmful (i.e., affected by at least one critical/serious error). In a multivariate model, only the number of medications included in the transfer report was associated with the occurrence of at least one critical/serious error. CONCLUSIONS: Errors in ICU transfer reports are frequent and may be potentially harmful. ICU nurses may help to effectively and accurately intercept those inaccuracies, and therefore reduce the exportation of errors from the ICU to the ward.
Authors: Andreas Valentin; Maurizia Capuzzo; Bertrand Guidet; Rui P Moreno; Lorenz Dolanski; Peter Bauer; Philipp G H Metnitz Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2006-07-28 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jeffrey M Rothschild; Christopher P Landrigan; John W Cronin; Rainu Kaushal; Steven W Lockley; Elisabeth Burdick; Peter H Stone; Craig M Lilly; Joel T Katz; Charles A Czeisler; David W Bates Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: D Bracco; J B Favre; B Bissonnette; J B Wasserfallen; J P Revelly; P Ravussin; R Chioléro Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Stephen Osmon; Carolyn B Harris; W Claiborne Dunagan; Donna Prentice; Victoria J Fraser; Marin H Kollef Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Elizabeth A Coon; Neha M Kramer; Rachel R Fabris; David B Burkholder; James P Klaas; Jonathan Graff-Radford; S Arthur Moore; Eelco F M Wijdicks; Jeffrey W Britton; Lyell K Jones Journal: Neurol Clin Pract Date: 2015-02
Authors: Nelleke van Sluisveld; Gijs Hesselink; Johannes Gerardus van der Hoeven; Gert Westert; Hub Wollersheim; Marieke Zegers Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nelleke van Sluisveld; Ferishta Bakhshi-Raiez; Nicolette de Keizer; Rebecca Holman; Gert Wester; Hub Wollersheim; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Marieke Zegers Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Cody L Nathan; Laura Stein; Lisa J George; Bethany Young; Jessica Fuller; Brianna Gravina; Phyllis Dubendorf; Scott E Kasner; Monisha A Kumar Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: Nick M Murray; Aditya N Joshi; Kassi Kronfeld; Kyle Hobbs; Eric Bernier; Karen G Hirsch; Carl A Gold Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2019-09-10