G Haller1, D S Courvoisier, H Anderson, P S Myles. 1. Department of Anesthesia, Pharmacology and Intensive Care, Geneva University Hospitals, University of Geneva, 4, rue Perret-Gentil, 1211 Genève 14, Switzerland. guy.haller@hcuge.ch
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Incident reporting is a widely recommended method to measure undesirable events in anaesthesia. Under-utilization is a major weakness of voluntary incident reporting systems. Little is known about factors influencing reporting practices, particularly the clinical environment, anaesthesia team composition, severity of the incident, and perceived risk of litigation. The purpose of this study was to assess each of these, using an existing anaesthesia database. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study and analysed 46 207 surgical patients. We used multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with the non-utilization of the reporting system. RESULTS: We found that in 7022 (15.1%) of the procedures performed, the incident reporting system was not used. Factors associated with the non-use of the system were regional anaesthesia/local anaesthesia, odds ratio (OR) 1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.62], emergency procedures OR 1.15 (95% CI: 1.05-1.27), and a consultant anaesthetist working without a trainee, OR 1.71 (95% CI: 1.03-2.82). In contrast, factors such as longer duration of surgery, OR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.94), the presence of a senior anaesthesia trainee, OR 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.92), and the occurrence of severe complications with a high risk of litigation (i.e. death, nerve injuries) were less associated with a non-use of the reporting system, OR 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44-0.97). Team composition and time of day had no measurable impact on reporting practices. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors play a significant role in the utilization of an anaesthesia incident reporting system and more particularly, severity of complications and higher liability risks which appear more as incentives than barriers to incident reporting.
BACKGROUND: Incident reporting is a widely recommended method to measure undesirable events in anaesthesia. Under-utilization is a major weakness of voluntary incident reporting systems. Little is known about factors influencing reporting practices, particularly the clinical environment, anaesthesia team composition, severity of the incident, and perceived risk of litigation. The purpose of this study was to assess each of these, using an existing anaesthesia database. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study and analysed 46 207 surgical patients. We used multivariate analysis to identify factors associated with the non-utilization of the reporting system. RESULTS: We found that in 7022 (15.1%) of the procedures performed, the incident reporting system was not used. Factors associated with the non-use of the system were regional anaesthesia/local anaesthesia, odds ratio (OR) 1.64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03-2.62], emergency procedures OR 1.15 (95% CI: 1.05-1.27), and a consultant anaesthetist working without a trainee, OR 1.71 (95% CI: 1.03-2.82). In contrast, factors such as longer duration of surgery, OR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76-0.94), the presence of a senior anaesthesia trainee, OR 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.92), and the occurrence of severe complications with a high risk of litigation (i.e. death, nerve injuries) were less associated with a non-use of the reporting system, OR 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44-0.97). Team composition and time of day had no measurable impact on reporting practices. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors play a significant role in the utilization of an anaesthesia incident reporting system and more particularly, severity of complications and higher liability risks which appear more as incentives than barriers to incident reporting.