Rachel B Webman1, Jennifer L Fritzeen, JaeWon Yang, Grace F Ye, Paul C Mullan, Faisal G Qureshi, Sarah H Parker, Aleksandra Sarcevic, Ivan Marsic, Randall S Burd. 1. From the Division of Trauma and Burn Surgery, Children's National Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia (R.B.W., J.L.F., J.Y., R.S.B.); George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, District of Columbia (G.F.Y.); Division of Emergency Medicine and Trauma Services, Children's Hospital of the King's Daughters, Norfolk, Virginia (P.C.M.); Division of Pediatric Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas (F.G.Q.); Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, Roanoke, Virginia (S.H.P.); College of Computing and Informatics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (A.S.); and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey (I.M.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Errors directly causing serious harm are rare during pediatric trauma resuscitation, limiting the use of adverse outcome analysis for performance improvement in this setting. Errors not causing harm because of mitigation or chance may have similar causation and are more frequent than those causing adverse outcomes. Analyzing these error types is an alternative to adverse outcome analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify errors of any type during pediatric trauma resuscitation and evaluate team responses to their occurrence. METHODS: Errors identified using video analysis were classified as errors of omission or commission and selection errors using input from trauma experts. The responses to error types and error frequency based on patient and event features were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-nine resuscitations were reviewed, identifying 337 errors (range, 2-26 per resuscitation). The most common errors were related to cervical spine stabilization (n = 93, 27.6%). Errors of omission (n = 135) and commission (n = 106) were more common than errors of selection (n = 96). Although 35.9% of all errors were acknowledged and compensation occurred after 43.6%, no response (acknowledgement or compensation) was observed after 51.3% of errors. Errors of omission and commission were more often acknowledged (40.7% and 39.6% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively) and compensated for (50.4% and 47.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively) than selection errors. Response differences between errors of omission and commission were not observed. The number of errors and the number of high-risk errors that occurred did not differ based on patient or event features. CONCLUSIONS: Errors are common during pediatric trauma resuscitation. Teams did not respond to most errors, although differences in team response were observed between error types. Determining causation of errors may be an approach for identifying latent safety threats contributing to adverse outcomes during pediatric trauma resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.
BACKGROUND: Errors directly causing serious harm are rare during pediatric trauma resuscitation, limiting the use of adverse outcome analysis for performance improvement in this setting. Errors not causing harm because of mitigation or chance may have similar causation and are more frequent than those causing adverse outcomes. Analyzing these error types is an alternative to adverse outcome analysis. The purpose of this study was to identify errors of any type during pediatric trauma resuscitation and evaluate team responses to their occurrence. METHODS: Errors identified using video analysis were classified as errors of omission or commission and selection errors using input from trauma experts. The responses to error types and error frequency based on patient and event features were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-nine resuscitations were reviewed, identifying 337 errors (range, 2-26 per resuscitation). The most common errors were related to cervical spine stabilization (n = 93, 27.6%). Errors of omission (n = 135) and commission (n = 106) were more common than errors of selection (n = 96). Although 35.9% of all errors were acknowledged and compensation occurred after 43.6%, no response (acknowledgement or compensation) was observed after 51.3% of errors. Errors of omission and commission were more often acknowledged (40.7% and 39.6% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively) and compensated for (50.4% and 47.2% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.004 and p = 0.01, respectively) than selection errors. Response differences between errors of omission and commission were not observed. The number of errors and the number of high-risk errors that occurred did not differ based on patient or event features. CONCLUSIONS: Errors are common during pediatric trauma resuscitation. Teams did not respond to most errors, although differences in team response were observed between error types. Determining causation of errors may be an approach for identifying latent safety threats contributing to adverse outcomes during pediatric trauma resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.
Authors: Jan Maarten Schraagen; Ton Schouten; Meike Smit; Felix Haas; Dolf van der Beek; Josine van de Ven; Paul Barach Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2011-04-13 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Jason M Slagle; Shilo Anders; Eric Porterfield; Alexandra Arnold; Charles Calderwood; Matthew B Weinger Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Demetrios Demetriades; Brian Kimbrell; Ali Salim; George Velmahos; Peter Rhee; Christy Preston; Ginger Gruzinski; Linda Chan Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: J R Clarke; B Spejewski; A S Gertner; B L Webber; C Z Hayward; T A Santora; D K Wagner; C C Baker; H R Champion; T C Fabian; F R Lewis; E E Moore; J A Weigelt; A B Eastman; C Blank-Reid Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Philip H Pucher; Rajesh Aggarwal; Ahmed Twaij; Nicola Batrick; Michael Jenkins; Ara Darzi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Omar Z Ahmed; Sen Yang; Richard A Farneth; Aleksandra Sarcevic; Ivan Marsic; Randall S Burd Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Sen Yang; Weiqing Ni; Xin Dong; Shuhong Chen; Richard A Farneth; Aleksandra Sarcevic; Ivan Marsic; Randall S Burd Journal: IEEE Int Conf Healthc Inform Date: 2018-07-26
Authors: Emily C Alberto; Michael J Amberson; Megan Cheng; Ivan Marsic; Arunachalam A Thenappan; Aleksandra Sarcevic; Karen J O'Connell; Randall S Burd Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Sen Yang; Aleksandra Sarcevic; Richard A Farneth; Shuhong Chen; Omar Z Ahmed; Ivan Marsic; Randall S Burd Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Omar Z Ahmed; Rachel B Webman; Puja D Sheth; Jonah I Donnenfield; JaeWon Yang; Aleksandra Sarcevic; Ivan Marsic; Randall S Burd Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Daniel J France; Jason Slagle; Emma Schremp; Sarah Moroz; L Dupree Hatch; Peter Grubb; Timothy J Vogus; Matthew S Shotwell; Amanda Lorinc; Christoph U Lehmann; Jamie Robinson; Marlee Crankshaw; Maria Sullivan; Timothy A Newman; Tamara Wallace; Matthew B Weinger; Martin L Blakely Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 2.844
Authors: Angela Mastrianni; Aleksandra Sarcevic; Lauren S Chung; Issa Zakeri; Emily C Alberto; Zachary P Milestone; Randall S Burd; Ivan Marsic Journal: DIS (Des Interact Syst Conf) Date: 2021-06-28