Literature DB >> 21821515

Barriers to adverse event and error reporting in anesthesia.

Gaylene C Heard1, Penelope M Sanderson, Rowan D Thomas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although anesthesiologists are leaders in patient safety, there has been little research on factors affecting their reporting of adverse events and errors. First, we explored the attitudinal/emotional factors influencing reporting of an unspecified adverse event caused by error. Second, we used a between-groups study design to ask whether there are different perceived barriers to reporting a case of anaphylaxis caused by an error compared with anaphylaxis not caused by error. Finally, we examined strategies that anesthesiologists believe would facilitate reporting. Where possible, we contrasted our results with published findings from other physician groups.
METHODS: An anonymous, self-administered, mailed survey was conducted of 629 consultant anesthesiologists and 263 anesthesiology residents on the mailing list of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists in Victoria, Australia. Participants were randomized into "Error" versus "No Error" groups for the specified anaphylaxis adverse event section of the survey. Data were analyzed using nonparametric descriptive and inferential tests.
RESULTS: There were 433 usable returned surveys, a usable response rate of 49%. First, there was only 1 of 13 statements on attitudinal/emotional factors that influenced reporting of an unspecified adverse event caused by error with which more anesthesiologists agreed/strongly agreed than disagreed/strongly disagreed: "Doctors who make errors are blamed by their colleagues." Second, when an error rather than no error had caused anaphylaxis, participants were more likely to agree/strongly agree that 6 statements about litigation, getting into trouble, disciplinary action, being blamed, unsupportive colleagues, and not wanting the case discussed in meetings, were perceived as reporting barriers. Finally, the most favored assistive strategies for reporting were generalized deidentified feedback about adverse event and error reports, role models such as senior colleagues who openly encourage reporting, and legislated protection of reports from legal discoverability.
CONCLUSION: The majority of anesthesiologists in our study did not agree that the attitudinal/emotional barriers surveyed would influence reporting of an unspecified adverse event caused by error, with the exception of the barrier of being concerned about blame by colleagues. The probable influence of 6 perceived barriers to reporting a specified adverse event of anaphylaxis differed with the presence or absence of error. Anesthesiologists in our study supported assistive reporting strategies. There seem to be some differences between our results and previously published research for other physician groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21821515     DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31822649e8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  14 in total

1.  [Learning from a critical incident reporting system in the pediatric intensive care unit].

Authors:  M Stocker; T M Berger
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 1.041

2.  Detection of medical errors in kidney transplantation: a pilot study comparing proactive clinician debriefings to a hospital-wide incident reporting system.

Authors:  Lisa M McElroy; Amna Daud; Brittany Lapin; Olivia Ross; Donna M Woods; Anton I Skaro; Jane L Holl; Daniela P Ladner
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of reporting of clinical adverse events scale (C-RoCAES).

Authors:  Xiao Sun; Yan Shi; Shuying Zhang; Meimei Tian; Yafen Mao; Qian Wu; Xiaoping Zhu; Meifang Gong
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2014-10-15

4.  Applying the WHO conceptual framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety to a surgical population.

Authors:  L M McElroy; D M Woods; A F Yanes; A I Skaro; A Daud; T Curtis; E Wymore; J L Holl; M M Abecassis; D P Ladner
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2016-01-23       Impact factor: 2.038

5.  Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff.

Authors:  Johannes Wacker; Johann Steurer; Tanja Manser; Elke Leisinger; Reto Stocker; Georg Mols
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2015-01-31       Impact factor: 2.217

6.  Joint registry approach for identification of outlier prostheses.

Authors:  Richard N de Steiger; Lisa N Miller; David C Davidson; Philip Ryan; Stephen E Graves
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 3.717

Review 7.  Factors that influence the recognition, reporting and resolution of incidents related to medical devices and other healthcare technologies: a systematic review.

Authors:  Julie Polisena; Anna Gagliardi; David Urbach; Tammy Clifford; Michelle Fiander
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-03-29

Review 8.  Development of a theoretical framework of factors affecting patient safety incident reporting: a theoretical review of the literature.

Authors:  Stephanie Archer; Louise Hull; Tayana Soukup; Erik Mayer; Thanos Athanasiou; Nick Sevdalis; Ara Darzi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Differences in Perspectives of Medical Device Adverse Events: Observational Results in Training Program Using Virtual Cases.

Authors:  Chiho Yoon; Ki Chang Nam; You Kyoung Lee; Youngjoon Kang; Soo Jeong Choi; Hye Mi Shin; HyeJung Jang; Jin Kuk Kim; Bum Sun Kwon; Hiroshi Ishikawa; Eric Woo
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2019-10-14       Impact factor: 2.153

Review 10.  A Narrative Review of Strategies to Increase Patient Safety Event Reporting by Residents.

Authors:  Maria Aaron; Adam Webb; Ulemu Luhanga
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2020-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.