Critical incidents in paediatric critical care: who is at risk?

Intensive care drug therapy and its potential adverse effects on blood pressure and heart rate in critically ill children

BACKGROUND

Owing to complex treatment, critically ill children may experience alterations in their vital parameters. We investigated whether such hemodynamic alterations were temporally and causally related to drug therapy.

METHODS

In a university pediatric intensive care unit, we retrospectively analyzed hemodynamic alterations defined as values exceeding the limits set for heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP). For causality assessment, we used the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Center (WHO-UMC) system, which categorizes the probability of causality as "certain," "probable," "possible," and "unlikely."

RESULTS

Of 315 analyzed patients with 43,200 drug prescriptions, 59.7% experienced at least one hemodynamic alteration; 39.0% were affected by increased HR, 19.0% by decreased HR, 18.1% by increased BP, and 16.2% by decreased BP. According to drug information databases, 83.9% of administered drugs potentially lead to hemodynamic alterations. Overall, 88.3% of the observed hemodynamic alterations had a temporal relation to the administration of drugs; in 80.2%, more than one drug was involved. Based on the WHO-UMC system, a drug was rated as a "probable" causing factor for only 1.4% of hemodynamic alterations. For the remaining alterations, the probability ratings were lower because of multiple potential causes, e.g., several drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Critically ill children were frequently affected by hemodynamic alterations. The administration of drugs with potentially adverse effects on hemodynamic parameters is often temporally related to hemodynamic alterations. Hemodynamic alterations are often multifactorial, e.g., due to administering multiple drugs in rapid succession; thus, the influence of individual drugs cannot easily be captured with the WHO-UMC system.

The occurrence of adverse events is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in children admitted to a single pediatric intensive care unit

Healthcare can cause harm. The goal of this study is to evaluate the association between the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) and morbidity-mortality in critically ill children. A prospective cohort study was designed. All children admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) between August 2016 and July 2017 were followed. An AE was considered any harm associated with a healthcare-related incident. AEs were identified in two steps: first, adverse clinical incidents (ACI) were recognized through direct observation and active surveillance by PICU physicians, and then the patient safety committee evaluated every ACI to define which would be considered an AE. The outcome was hospital morbidity-mortality. There were 467 ACI registered, 249 (53.31%) were considered AEs and the rate was 4.27/100 patient days. From the 842 children included, 142 (16.86%) suffered AEs, 39 (4.63%) experienced morbidity-mortality: 33 (3.92%) died, and 6 (0.71%) had morbidity. Multivariate analysis revealed that the occurrence of AEs was significantly associated with morbidity-mortality, OR 5.70 (CI95% 2.58-12.58, p = 0.001). This association was independent of age and severity of illness score.Conclusion: Experiencing AEs significantly increased the risk of morbidity-mortality in this cohort of PICU children.What is Known:• Many children suffer healthcare-associated harm during pediatric intensive care hospitalization.What is New:• This prospective cohort study shows that experiencing adverse events during pediatric intensive care hospitalization significantly increases the risk of morbidity and mortality independent of age and severity of illness at admission.

The Pediatric Index of Mortality as a Trigger Tool for the Detection of Serious Errors and Adverse Events

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that patients who die in a PICU despite a low predicted mortality at PICU admission are affected by serious errors and adverse events.

DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional review of medical records for serious errors and adverse events.

SETTING

Tertiary interdisciplinary neonatal PICU.

PATIENTS

All admissions to our PICU who died despite a low expected mortality (Pediatric Index of Mortality) of less than 10% (trigger-positive admissions). They were compared with a random sample of 100 PICU admissions with a Pediatric Index of Mortality of less than 10% who survived (trigger-negative admissions).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 7,383 admissions (91%) with a Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 below 10%. Seventy-two trigger-positive admissions and 100 trigger-negative admissions met the criteria for detailed chart review. Forty-five serious errors and adverse events were identified, 0.47 per trigger-positive admission and 0.11 per trigger-negative admission (p < 0.001). Nineteen serious errors and adverse events (42%) were related to clinical sepsis acquired during the PICU stay, 17 (89%) in trigger-positive admissions and two (11%) in trigger-negative admissions (p < 0.001). A further 18 serious errors and adverse events (40%) were intervention related, nine (50%) in trigger-positive admissions and nine (50%) in trigger-negative admissions (p = 0.46). Eight serious errors and adverse events (18%) were associated with medication use, all of which occurred in trigger-positive admissions (p = 0.001). The median (interquartile range) age for admissions with and without serious errors and adverse events was 0.3 months (0.0-4.6 mo) and 7.4 months (0.4-58.4 mo) (p < 0.001), and their median (interquartile range) duration of invasive ventilation was 140 hours (50-451 hr) and 2 hours (0-41 hr) (p < 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The records of PICU patients with a low expected mortality at admission and death in PICU should be reviewed routinely and/or discussed at morbidity and mortality meetings. These patients may have experienced more in-hospital safety-related events compared with PICU patients with a low Pediatric Index of Mortality who survived. Such adverse events may be amenable to system changes, thus improving patient care.

The occurrence of adverse events in low-risk non-survivors in pediatric intensive care patients: an exploratory study

We studied the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) in low-risk non-survivors (LNs), compared to low-risk survivors (LSs), high-risk non-survivors (HNs), and high-risk survivors (HSs) in two pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). The study was performed as a retrospective patient record review study, using a PICU-trigger tool. A random sample of 48 PICU patients (0-18 years) was chosen, stratified into four subgroups of 12 patients: LNs, LSs, HNs, and HSs. Primary outcome was the occurrence of AEs. The severity, preventability, and nature of the indentified AEs were determined. In total, 45 AEs were found in 20 patients. The occurrence of AEs in the LN group was significantly higher compared to that in the LS group and HN group (AE occurrence: LN 10/12 patients, LS 1/12 patients; HN 2/12 patients; HS 7/12 patients; LN-LS difference, p < 0.001; LN-HN difference, p < 0.01). The AE rate in the LN group was significantly higher compared to that in the LS and HN groups (median [IQR]: LN 0.12 [0.07-0.29], LS 0 [0-0], HN 0 [0-0], and HS 0.03 [0.0-0.17] AE/PICU day; LN-LS difference, p < 0.001; LN-HN difference, p < 0.01). The distribution of the AEs among the four groups was as follows: 25 AEs (LN), 2 AEs (LS), 8 AEs (HN), and 10 AEs (HS). Fifteen of forty-five AEs were preventable. In 2/12 LN patients, death occurred after a preventable AE.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of AEs in LNs was higher compared to that in LSs and HNs. Some AEs were severe and preventable and contributed to mortality. What is Known: • 59-76% of all PICU patients encounter at least one adverse event during their PICU stay. • It is unknown if adverse events play a role in death of low-risk PICU patients. What is New: • In low-risk PICU non-survivors, occurrence of adverse events is higher compared to low-risk PICU survivors and to high-risk PICU non-survivors. • Severe and preventable adverse events occur in low-risk PICU non-survivors, some contributing to mortality.

The Well-Defined Pediatric ICU: Active Surveillance Using Nonmedical Personnel to Capture Less Serious Safety Events

BACKGROUND

Adverse events, diverse and often costly, commonly occur in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). Serious safety events (SSEs) are captured through well-developed systems, typically by voluntary reporting. Less serious safety events (LSSEs), including close calls, however, occur at a higher frequency than those that result in immediate harm or death but are underestimated by standard reporting systems. LSSEs can reveal system defects and precede serious events resulting in patient or provider harm.

METHODS

A unique active surveillance program was created at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota to quantify and categorize, and, ultimately reduce, LSSEs, in PICUs. Premedical college graduates without formal health care training daily canvassed the PICUs and facilitated reporting of LSSEs at the point of care. Events were recorded on a Web application and stored in a relational database management system. Events were enumerated and categorized according to distinctive characteristics (Theme Index) and real or potential harm (Harm Index).

RESULTS

Some 1,980 PICU patients, representing 10,766 PICU patient-days in a 15-month period (June 1, 2013- August 31, 2014) experienced 2,465 LSSEs-5.4 LSSEs/ day or 0.23 LSSEs/patient-day. Such events resulted in a patient intervention 38% of the time. Some 158 quality/safety improvement projects were initiated during the observation period, 74 of which have been completed. Quality/safety information was broadcasted to providers, local leadership, and hospital management.

CONCLUSIONS

LSSEs occur frequently in our PICUs. Non-health care providers can cost-effectively facilitate reporting by actively canvassing PICU providers on a daily basis and can contribute to quality/safety improvement projects and local safety culture. Reported events can serve as a focus for quality/safety improvement projects. A Web application and mobile tablet interfaces are efficient tools to record events.

Comparison of a Trigger Tool and Voluntary Reporting to Identify Adverse Events in a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit

Reduction of adverse events depends on accurate detection. The utility of a Trigger Tool to detect and classify severity of adverse events in an intensive care unit of a paediatric university hospital was compared to voluntary reporting. Sixty patient records were randomly selected from 314 admissions over three months. Events detected by the Trigger Tool were classified by two independent investigators as insignificant, minor, moderate, major or catastrophic. Examination of each record required, on average, 40 minutes. Ninety-eight adverse events (1.66/patient) were detected in 59 available records. Mean admission was 2.77 days. The incidence of adverse events was 59.9 per 100 patient days or 0.60 events per patient per day. The number of events detected by the Trigger Tool was related to duration of admission (r=0.70, P < 0.0001) and risk of mortality on admission (r=0.50, P=0.0001) but not to age. The inter-rater agreement on detection of adverse events was good. Investigator One detected 66 adverse events while Investigator Two detected 93 events (kappa 0.63). Of the 61 events detected by both investigators, the agreement of classification of severity was very good (kappa 0.89). Of the 56 events rated similarly by both investigators, 13 (23%) were insignificant, 19 (34%) were minor, 17 (30%) were moderate, 4 (7%) were major and 3 (6%) were catastrophic. Only four adverse events had been reported voluntarily, of which two were detected using the Trigger Tool. Whereas the Trigger Tool is a simple, efficient and robust method, voluntary reporting is inadequate and captures very few adverse events in the intensive care unit environment.