BACKGROUND: The unique and complex vascular and endovascular theatre environment is associated with significant risks of patient harm and procedural inefficiency. Accurate evaluation is crucial to improve quality. This pilot study attempted to design a valid, reproducible tool for observers and teams to identify and categorise errors. METHODS: Relevant published literature and previously collected ethnographic field notes from over 250 h of arterial surgery were analysed. A comprehensive log of vascular procedural errors was compiled and twelve vascular experts graded each error for the potential to disrupt procedural flow and cause harm. Using this multimodal approach, the Imperial College Error CAPture (ICECAP) tool was developed. The tool was validated during 21 consecutive arterial cases (52 h operating-time) as an observer-led error capture record and as a prompt for surgical teams to determine the feasibility of error self-reporting. RESULTS: Six primary categories (communication, equipment, procedure independent pressures, technical, safety awareness and patient related) and 20 error sub-categories were determined as the most frequent and important vascular procedural errors. Using the ICECAP, the number of errors detected correlated well between two observers (Spearman rho = 0.984, p < 0.001). Both observers identified all moderate or severe errors similarly and categorised all but 4/139 (2.9%) of the total errors in an identical fashion. Self-reporting of errors without prompting identified a mean of 24.4% (range 0-50%) of all recorded errors, whereas surgical teams reported a mean of 69.7% (range 50-100%) of errors when ICECAP error-category prompts were used. CONCLUSION: The ICECAP tool may be useful for capturing and categorising errors that occur during vascular/endovascular procedures. ICECAP may also have a role as an error recall prompt for self-reporting purposes by vascular surgical teams.
BACKGROUND: The unique and complex vascular and endovascular theatre environment is associated with significant risks of patient harm and procedural inefficiency. Accurate evaluation is crucial to improve quality. This pilot study attempted to design a valid, reproducible tool for observers and teams to identify and categorise errors. METHODS: Relevant published literature and previously collected ethnographic field notes from over 250 h of arterial surgery were analysed. A comprehensive log of vascular procedural errors was compiled and twelve vascular experts graded each error for the potential to disrupt procedural flow and cause harm. Using this multimodal approach, the Imperial College Error CAPture (ICECAP) tool was developed. The tool was validated during 21 consecutive arterial cases (52 h operating-time) as an observer-led error capture record and as a prompt for surgical teams to determine the feasibility of error self-reporting. RESULTS: Six primary categories (communication, equipment, procedure independent pressures, technical, safety awareness and patient related) and 20 error sub-categories were determined as the most frequent and important vascular procedural errors. Using the ICECAP, the number of errors detected correlated well between two observers (Spearman rho = 0.984, p < 0.001). Both observers identified all moderate or severe errors similarly and categorised all but 4/139 (2.9%) of the total errors in an identical fashion. Self-reporting of errors without prompting identified a mean of 24.4% (range 0-50%) of all recorded errors, whereas surgical teams reported a mean of 69.7% (range 50-100%) of errors when ICECAP error-category prompts were used. CONCLUSION: The ICECAP tool may be useful for capturing and categorising errors that occur during vascular/endovascular procedures. ICECAP may also have a role as an error recall prompt for self-reporting purposes by vascular surgical teams.