Katherine M Marsh1,2,3, Florence E Turrentine1,2,3, Karen Knight4, Elaine Attridge4, Xizhao Chen3, Stephany Vittitow3, R Scott Jones1,2,3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 2. Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 3. School of Medicine, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA. 4. The Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the extent surgical disciplines categorize, define, and study errors, then use this information to provide recommendations for both current practice and future study. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The report "To Err is Human" brought the ubiquity of medical errors to public attention. Variability in subsequent literature suggests the true prevalence of error remains unknown. METHODS: In January 2020, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Only studies with Oxford Level of Evidence Level 3 or higher were included. RESULTS: Of 3064 studies, 92 met inclusion criteria: 6 randomized controlled trials, 4 systematic reviews, 24 cohort, 10 before-after, 35 outcome/audit, 5 cross sectional and 8 case-control studies. Over 15,933,430 patients and 162,113 errors were represented. There were 6 broad error categories, 13 different definitions of error, and 14 study methods. CONCLUSIONS: Reported prevalence of error varied widely due to a lack of standardized categorization, definitions, and study methods. Future research should focus on immediately recognizing errors to minimize harm.
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the extent surgical disciplines categorize, define, and study errors, then use this information to provide recommendations for both current practice and future study. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The report "To Err is Human" brought the ubiquity of medical errors to public attention. Variability in subsequent literature suggests the true prevalence of error remains unknown. METHODS: In January 2020, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. Only studies with Oxford Level of Evidence Level 3 or higher were included. RESULTS: Of 3064 studies, 92 met inclusion criteria: 6 randomized controlled trials, 4 systematic reviews, 24 cohort, 10 before-after, 35 outcome/audit, 5 cross sectional and 8 case-control studies. Over 15,933,430 patients and 162,113 errors were represented. There were 6 broad error categories, 13 different definitions of error, and 14 study methods. CONCLUSIONS: Reported prevalence of error varied widely due to a lack of standardized categorization, definitions, and study methods. Future research should focus on immediately recognizing errors to minimize harm.
Authors: Michael Eppler; Aref S Sayegh; Mitchell Goldenberg; Tamir Sholklapper; Sij Hemal; Giovanni E Cacciamani Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.964