Literature DB >> 23835591

Patient injuries from anesthesia gas delivery equipment: a closed claims update.

Sonya P Mehta1, James B Eisenkraft, Karen L Posner, Karen B Domino.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Improvements in anesthesia gas delivery equipment and provider training may increase patient safety. The authors analyzed patient injuries related to gas delivery equipment claims from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project database over the decades from 1970s to the 2000s.
METHODS: After the Institutional Review Board approval, the authors reviewed the Closed Claims Project database of 9,806 total claims. Inclusion criteria were general anesthesia for surgical or obstetric anesthesia care (n = 6,022). Anesthesia gas delivery equipment was defined as any device used to convey gas to or from (but not involving) the airway management device. Claims related to anesthesia gas delivery equipment were compared between time periods by chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: Anesthesia gas delivery claims decreased over the decades (P < 0.001) to 1% of claims in the 2000s. Outcomes in claims from 1990 to 2011 (n = 40) were less severe, with a greater proportion of awareness (n = 9, 23%; P = 0.003) and pneumothorax (n = 7, 18%; P = 0.047). Severe injuries (death/permanent brain damage) occurred in supplemental oxygen supply events outside the operating room, breathing circuit events, or ventilator mishaps. The majority (85%) of claims involved provider error with (n = 7) or without (n = 27) equipment failure. Thirty-five percent of claims were judged as preventable by preanesthesia machine check.
CONCLUSIONS: Gas delivery equipment claims in the Closed Claims Project database decreased in 1990-2011 compared with earlier decades. Provider error contributed to severe injury, especially with inadequate alarms, improvised oxygen delivery systems, and misdiagnosis or treatment of breathing circuit events.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23835591     DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182a10b5e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesthesiology        ISSN: 0003-3022            Impact factor:   7.892


  7 in total

1.  Testing of Anesthesia Machines and Defibrillators in Healthcare Institutions.

Authors:  Lejla Gurbeta; Zijad Dzemic; Tamer Bego; Ervin Sejdic; Almir Badnjevic
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 4.460

2.  New technology in anaesthesia: friend or foe?

Authors:  R Ross Kennedy
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Evaluation of the Approaches of the Anaesthesiologists on Maintenance of Anaesthesia Machines.

Authors:  Uğur Altınışık; Hatice Betül Altınışık; Tuncer Şimşek; Hasan Ali Kiraz; Tuğba Doğu; Hüseyin Toman; Hasan Şahin; Mesut Erbaş
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2016-06-01

4.  Performance gaps and improvement plans from a 5-hospital simulation programme for anaesthesiology providers: a retrospective study.

Authors:  Samuel DeMaria; Adam Levine; Philip Petrou; David Feldman; Patricia Kischak; Amanda Burden; Andrew Goldberg
Journal:  BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn       Date:  2017-04-05

5.  [Hypoxic gas mixture delivery due to a defective vaporiser manifold: case report, review of the literature and suggested emergency management algorithm].

Authors:  T Berlet
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2014-03-02       Impact factor: 1.041

6.  Another circuit block: This time the actual Bain circuit.

Authors:  Cn Jaideep
Journal:  Indian J Anaesth       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec

7.  Seizure-like movements caused by residual sevoflurane inside the anesthesia machine: A case report.

Authors:  Jianqiao Zheng; Li Du; Lu Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-01-29       Impact factor: 1.817

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.