Katherine M Marsh1, Mark A Fleming2, Florence E Turrentine3, Daniel E Levin4, Jeffrey W Gander4, Jessica Keim-Malpass5, R Scott Jones6. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0709, USA; Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-0709, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0709, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0709, USA; Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-0709, USA; School of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-0709, USA. 4. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0709, USA; Division of Pediatric Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-0709, USA. 5. School of Nursing, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-0709, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22908-0709, USA; Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22908-0709, USA. Electronic address: rsj@virginia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical errors were largely concealed prior to the landmark report "To Err Is Human". The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to determine the extent pediatric surgery defines and studies errors, and to explore themes among papers focused on errors in pediatric surgery. METHODS: The methodological framework used to conduct this scoping study has been outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. In January 2020, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Oxford Level of Evidence was assigned to each study; only studies rated Level 3 or higher were included. RESULTS: Of 3,064 initial studies, 12 were included in the final analysis: 4 cohort studies, and 8 outcome/audit studies. This data represented 5,442,000 aggregate patients and 8,893 errors. There were 6 different error definitions and 5 study methods. Common themes amongst the studies included a systems-focused approach, an increase in errors seen with increased complexity, and studies exploring the relationship between error and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed multiple error definitions, multiple error study methods, and common themes described in the pediatric surgical literature. Opportunities exist to improve the safety of surgical care of children by reducing errors. Original Scientific Research Type of Study: Systematic Scoping Review Level of Evidence Rating: 1.
BACKGROUND: Medical errors were largely concealed prior to the landmark report "To Err Is Human". The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to determine the extent pediatric surgery defines and studies errors, and to explore themes among papers focused on errors in pediatric surgery. METHODS: The methodological framework used to conduct this scoping study has been outlined by Arksey and O'Malley. In January 2020, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Oxford Level of Evidence was assigned to each study; only studies rated Level 3 or higher were included. RESULTS: Of 3,064 initial studies, 12 were included in the final analysis: 4 cohort studies, and 8 outcome/audit studies. This data represented 5,442,000 aggregate patients and 8,893 errors. There were 6 different error definitions and 5 study methods. Common themes amongst the studies included a systems-focused approach, an increase in errors seen with increased complexity, and studies exploring the relationship between error and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed multiple error definitions, multiple error study methods, and common themes described in the pediatric surgical literature. Opportunities exist to improve the safety of surgical care of children by reducing errors. Original Scientific Research Type of Study: Systematic Scoping Review Level of Evidence Rating: 1.
Authors: Ruwan A Weerakkody; Nicholas J Cheshire; Celia Riga; Rachael Lear; Mohammed S Hamady; Krishna Moorthy; Ara W Darzi; Charles Vincent; Colin D Bicknell Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Kirkham B Wood; John Devine; Dena Fischer; Joseph R Dettori; Michael Janssen Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Mai T Pham; Andrijana Rajić; Judy D Greig; Jan M Sargeant; Andrew Papadopoulos; Scott A McEwen Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 5.273