Literature DB >> 26492908

Inconsistent reporting of minimally invasive surgery errors.

A D White1,2, M Skelton2, F Mushtaq2, T W Pike1,2, M Mon-Williams2, J P A Lodge1, R M Wilkie2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is a complex task requiring dexterity and high level cognitive function. Unlike surgical 'never events', potentially important (and frequent) manual or cognitive slips ('technical errors') are underresearched. Little is known about the occurrence of routine errors in MIS, their relationship to patient outcome, and whether they are reported accurately and/or consistently.
METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all members of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, gathering demographic information, experience and reporting of MIS errors, and a rating of factors affecting error prevalence.
RESULTS: Of 249 responses, 203 completed more than 80% of the questions regarding the surgery they had performed in the preceding 12 months. Of these, 47% reported a significant error in their own performance and 75% were aware of a colleague experiencing error. Technical skill, knowledge, situational awareness and decision making were all identified as particularly important for avoiding errors in MIS. Reporting of errors was variable: 15% did not necessarily report an intraoperative error to a patient while 50% did not consistently report at an institutional level. Critically, 12% of surgeons were unaware of the procedure for reporting a technical error and 59% felt guidance is needed. Overall, 40% believed a confidential reporting system would increase their likelihood of reporting an error.
CONCLUSION: These data indicate inconsistent reporting of operative errors, and highlight the need to better understand how and why technical errors occur in MIS. A confidential 'no blame' reporting system might help improve patient outcomes and avoid a closed culture that can undermine public confidence.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Decision making; Laparoscopy; Medical errors; Minimally invasive surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26492908      PMCID: PMC5096613          DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2015.0038

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  18 in total

1.  The size-distance paradox is a cognitive phenomenon.

Authors:  M Mon-Williams; J R Tresilian
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review.

Authors:  C Vincent; G Neale; M Woloshynowych
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-03-03

3.  The challenge of objective assessment of surgical skill.

Authors:  A Darzi; V Datta; S Mackay
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.565

4.  Methods for improving performance under reverse alignment conditions during endoscopic surgery.

Authors:  A B Cresswell; A I Macmillan; G B Hanna; A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Distraction and action slips in an everyday task: evidence for a dynamic representation of task context.

Authors:  Matthew M Botvinick; Lauren M Bylsma
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-12

6.  Minimally invasive surgery training using multiple port sites to improve performance.

Authors:  Alan D White; Oscar Giles; Rebekah J Sutherland; Oliver Ziff; Mark Mon-Williams; Richard M Wilkie; J Peter A Lodge
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Disclosure of "nonharmful" medical errors and other events: duty to disclose.

Authors:  Catherine J Chamberlain; Leonidas G Koniaris; Albert W Wu; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2012-03

8.  Whither minimal access surgery: tribulations and expectations.

Authors:  A Cuschieri
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 9.  Reducing errors in the operating room: surgical proficiency and quality assurance of execution.

Authors:  A Cuschieri
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-07-14       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Relative changes from prior reward contingencies can constrain brain correlates of outcome monitoring.

Authors:  Faisal Mushtaq; Gijsbert Stoet; Amy Rachel Bland; Alexandre Schaefer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-20       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  A systematic examination of preoperative surgery warm-up routines.

Authors:  T W Pike; S Pathak; F Mushtaq; R M Wilkie; M Mon-Williams; J P A Lodge
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-09-15       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Contributory factors in surgical incidents as delineated by a confidential reporting system.

Authors:  F Mushtaq; C O'Driscoll; Fct Smith; D Wilkins; N Kapur; R Lawton
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-03-15       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  EAES classification of intraoperative adverse events in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  N K Francis; N J Curtis; J A Conti; J D Foster; H J Bonjer; G B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.584

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.