Five-year experience of critical incidents associated with patient-controlled analgesia in an Irish University Hospital

[Critical incidents in acute pain management-A risk analysis of CIRS reports]

BACKGROUND

Areas of activity with many intersections pose an increased risk for errors and critical incidents. Therefore, procedures for acute pain therapy are potentially associated with an increased risk for adverse patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to identify and grade the risk of critical incidents in the context of acute pain management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The register of the nationwide reporting system critical incident reporting system of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Medical Center for Quality in Medicine (CIRSmedical Anesthesiology) was screened for incidents concerning pain management. Out of 5365 cases reported nationwide up to 24 March 2020, 508 reports with the selection criterion "pain" could be identified and reviewed and 281 reports (55%) were included in a systematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 281 reports most came from anesthesiology departments (94%; 3% from surgery departments and 3% from other departments). The reported cases occurred most frequently on normal wards but a relevant proportion of the reports concerned intermediate and intensive care units or areas covered by a pain service (PS). Based on the description of the incident in the report, an involvement of the PS could be assumed for 42% of the cases. In terms of time, most of the events could be assigned to normal working hours (90%) and working days (84%; weekends 16%). The analyzed reports related to parenteral administration of analgesics (40%) and central (40%) or peripheral regional anesthesia procedures (23%) and 13% of the reports related to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA; multiple answers possible). Most of the events were caused by technical errors, communication deficits and deviations from routine protocols. A relevant number of the cases were based on mix-ups in the administration route, the dosage, or the active agent. About one third of the sources of error were of an organizational nature, 59% of the cases posed a possible vital risk and in 16% of cases patients had vital complications. The risk grading by risk matrix resulted in an extremely high risk in 7%, a high risk in 62%, a moderate risk in 25% and a low risk in 6% of the cases. Comparing risk assessment of events with involvement of different analgesic methods, multiple medication, combination of analgesic methods or involvement of PS showed no significant differences. Likewise, no differences could be identified between the risk assessments of events at different superordinate cause levels. If more than one overriding cause of error had an impact, initially no higher risk profile was found.

CONCLUSION

Incidents in the context of acute pain management can pose high risks for patients. Incidents or near-incidents are mostly related to mistakes and lack of skills of the staff, often due to time pressure and workload as well as to inadequate organization.

[Safety and monitoring of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia : Clinical practice in German hospitals]

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) is a well-established technique in acute pain management and available in most German hospitals. Despite its widespread use, information on current clinical practice is limited. This investigation evaluated clinical practice and monitoring as well as PCIA-associated adverse events and critical incidents in German hospitals.

METHODS

An invitation to participate in this online-survey was sent to 995 heads of anesthesiology departments belonging to the "German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine".

RESULTS

Of the departments receiving the link, 244 took part (response rate 25%). PCIA was used in 193 of these hospitals (79%). All the following statements relate to the hospitals in which PCIA was used. Piritramide was the most frequently used opioid. In parallel with PCIA, additional nonopioid analgesics were used in 94% of the hospitals, and in 38%, additional slow-release oral opioids were used. Parenteral opioids were administered by the ward staff in 4% of the hospitals. In 75% of hospitals, there were standardized indications for PCIA therapy, with almost two thirds of respondents stating that PCIA was the technique of second choice if regional procedures were contraindicated or failed. In all, 76% of the hospitals had an acute pain service. Twenty-four percent of the hospitals regularly used PCIA in non-surgical patients. In pediatric patients, PCIA was used in 62 hospitals (32%). Only 31% of the hospitals reported the use of standardized protocols for the specific monitoring of patients' vital signs on general wards, exceeding general care. Of the department, 158 (82%) reported adverse events in connection with the use of PCIA within the six-month period preceding the survey (most frequently due to patients' noncompliance [52%], dislocated intravenous lines [41%], communication errors [16%], administration of additional analgesics [16%] and/ or sedatives [14%], problems with the pump [16%], programming errors [9%], incorrect opioid concentration in the reservoir [8%], non-observance of contraindications [7%], incorrect dosing [6%] and self-dosing by the patient [4%] or by third parties [3%], filling the reservoir with thewrong medication [2%]; and other problems [5%]). Only 35 of the hospitals (18%) reported no problems associated with PCIA therapy. Seventy-five of the 193 respondents (39%) stated that at least one critical incident had occurred in the context of the use of PCIA. This resulted in a total of 335 cases out of an estimate of 50.000 patients treated with PCIA. The respondents classified these as follows: I) 273 incidents requiring a prolonged stay in the recovery room, but without further complications, II) 58 requiring transfer to the intensive care unit, but without further complications, III) three resulting in permanent harm to the patient and IV) one resulting in the death of the patient. A comparison of the monitoring standards for PCIA showed that critical incidents were reported less frequently in hospitals with less intensive monitoring, and more frequently in hospitals with higher monitoring standards.

CONCLUSION

PCIA is a frequently used analgesic technique in German hospitals. There were many differences in how PCIA therapy was applied and monitored on general wards. Adverse events occurred to a significant extent, with a considerable part of them, which might be preventable. Critical incidents were perceived more often when standards for monitoring on general wards were higher. Consented current recommendations regarding treatment and monitoring standards as well as the systematic recording of complications when using PCIA are pending.

[Management of patients with chronic pain in acute and perioperative medicine : An interdisciplinary challenge]

Chronic pain is a frequent comorbidity of patients in hospitals and has an influence on the clinical course and the duration of hospitalization. There is a need to have a better understanding of chronic pain as a comorbidity and it should be considered to a greater extent in understanding diseases, in treatment concepts and hospital structures to ensure a resource-oriented and high-quality care. This begins on admission by identifying pre-existing pain and related risk factors with the medical history and taking these into account in the treatment regimen. A multimodal treatment approach that involves medicinal, educational, psychological and physiotherapeutic expertise is required in these patients. A unimodal approach in the treatment is not effective. A pain physician should be involved in the treatment team as early as possible. Furthermore, psychological joint supervision should be available for these patients as several studies have demonstrated positive perioperative effects of psychological approaches on the treatment in this patient group.

Device-Related Error in Patient-Controlled Analgesia: Analysis of 82,698 Patients in a Tertiary Hospital

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is one of the most popular and effective methods for managing postoperative pain. Various types of continuous infusion pumps are available for the safe and accurate administration of analgesic drugs. Here we report the causes and clinical outcomes of device-related errors in PCA.

METHODS

Clinical records from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014 were collected by acute pain service team nurses in a 2715-bed tertiary hospital. Devices for all types of PCA, including intravenous PCA, epidural PCA, and nerve block PCA, were included for analysis. The following 4 types of infusion pumps were used during the study period: elastomeric balloon infusers, carbon dioxide-driven infusers, semielectronic disposable pumps, and electronic programmable pumps. We categorized PCA device-related errors based on the error mechanism and clinical features.

RESULTS

Among 82,698 surgical patients using PCA, 610 cases (0.74%) were reported as human error, and 155 cases (0.19%) of device-related errors were noted during the 4-year study period. The most common type of device-related error was underflow, which was observed in 47 cases (30.3%). The electronic programmable pump exhibited the high incidence of errors in PCA (70 of 15,052 patients; 0.47%; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.59) among the 4 types of devices, and 96 of 152 (63%) patients experienced some type of adverse outcome, ranging from minor symptoms to respiratory arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of PCA device-related errors was <0.2% and significantly differed according to the infusion pump type. A total of 63% of patients with PCA device-related errors suffered from adverse clinical outcomes, with no mortality. Recent technological advances may contribute to reducing the incidence and severity of PCA errors. Nonetheless, the results of this study can be used to improve patient safety and ensure quality care.

Non-invasive patient-controlled analgesia in the management of acute postoperative pain in the hospital setting

OBJECTIVE

Acute postoperative pain is experienced by the majority of hospitalized patients undergoing surgical procedures, with many reporting inadequate pain relief and/or high levels of dissatisfaction with their pain management. Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) ensures patient involvement in acute pain control, a key component for implementing a quality management system. This narrative article overviews the clinical evidence for conventional PCA and briefly discusses new, non-invasive PCA systems, namely the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (FITS).

METHODS

A Medline literature search ("patient-controlled analgesia" and "acute postoperative pain") was conducted to 1 April 2017; results from the main clinical trials are discussed. Additional literature was identified from the reference lists of cited publications.

RESULTS

Moderate to low quality evidence supports opioid-based intravenous PCA as an efficacious alternative to non-patient-controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain. However, despite the benefits of PCA, conventional intravenous PCA is limited by system-, drug- and human-related issues. The non-invasive SSTS and FITS have demonstrated good efficacy and safety in placebo- and intravenous morphine PCA-controlled trials, and are associated with high patient/healthcare practitioner satisfaction/ease of care ratings and offer early patient mobilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based guidelines for acute postoperative pain management support the use of multimodal regimens in many situations. As effective and safe alternatives to conventional PCA, and with the added benefits of being non-invasive, easy to use and allowing early patient mobilization, the newer PCA systems may complement multimodal approaches, or potentially replace certain regimens, in hospitalized patients with acute postoperative pain.

Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients: development and evaluation of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing patient safety incidents and protecting them against unintended harm

Background

Estimates suggest that, in NHS hospitals, incidents causing harm to patients occur in 10% of admissions, with costs to the NHS of > £2B. About one-third of harmful events are believed to be preventable. Strategies to reduce patient safety incidents (PSIs) have mostly focused on changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with the role that patients can play in enhancing the safety of care being relatively unexplored. However, although the role and effectiveness of patient involvement in safety initiatives is unclear, previous work has identified a general willingness among patients to contribute to initiatives to improve health-care safety.

Aim

Our aim in this programme was to design, develop and evaluate four innovative approaches to engage patients in preventing PSIs: assessing risk, reporting incidents, direct engagement in preventing harm and education and training.

Methods and results

We developed tools to report PSIs [patient incident reporting tool (PIRT)] and provide feedback on factors that might contribute to PSIs in the future [Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)]. These were combined into a single instrument and evaluated in the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention using a randomised design. Although take-up of the intervention by, and retention of, participating hospital wards was 100% and patient participation was high at 86%, compliance with the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. We found no significant effect of the intervention on outcomes at 6 or 12 months. The ThinkSAFE project involved the development and evaluation of an intervention to support patients to directly engage with health-care staff to enhance their safety through strategies such as checking their care and speaking up to staff if they had any concerns. The piloting of ThinkSAFE showed that the approach is feasible and acceptable to users and may have the potential to improve patient safety. We also developed a patient safety training programme for junior doctors based on patients who had experienced PSIs recounting their own stories. This approach was compared with traditional methods of patient safety teaching in a randomised controlled trial. The study showed that delivering patient safety training based on patient narratives is feasible and had an effect on emotional engagement and learning about communication. However, there was no effect on changing general attitudes to safety compared with the control.

Conclusion

This research programme has developed a number of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing PSIs and protecting them against unintended harm. In our evaluations of these interventions we have been unable to demonstrate any improvement in patient safety although this conclusion comes with a number of caveats, mainly about the difficulty of measuring patient safety outcomes. Reflecting this difficulty, one of our recommendations for future research is to develop reliable and valid measures to help efficiently evaluate safety improvement interventions. The programme found patients to be willing to codesign, coproduce and participate in initiatives to prevent PSIs and the approaches used were feasible and acceptable. These factors together with recent calls to strengthen the patient voice in health care could suggest that the tools and interventions from this programme would benefit from further development and evaluation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07689702.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to develop a 'contributory factors framework' from a synthesis of empirical work which summarises factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review of the literature was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, ISI Web of knowledge, CINAHL and EMBASE), article reference lists, patient safety websites, registered study databases and author contacts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included that reported data from primary research in secondary care aiming to identify the contributory factors to error or threats to patient safety.

RESULTS

1502 potential articles were identified. 95 papers (representing 83 studies) which met the inclusion criteria were included, and 1676 contributory factors extracted. Initial coding of contributory factors by two independent reviewers resulted in 20 domains (eg, team factors, supervision and leadership). Each contributory factor was then coded by two reviewers to one of these 20 domains. The majority of studies identified active failures (errors and violations) as factors contributing to patient safety incidents. Individual factors, communication, and equipment and supplies were the other most frequently reported factors within the existing evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has culminated in an empirically based framework of the factors contributing to patient safety incidents. This framework has the potential to be applied across hospital settings to improve the identification and prevention of factors that cause harm to patients.