Incidence and Classification of Nonroutine Events during Anesthesia Care

Beyond adverse events in anesthesiology: 'unanticipated events' and strategies for improved reporting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient safety in anesthesiology has advanced significantly over the past several decades. The current process of improving care is often based on studying adverse events (AEs) and near misses. However, there is a wealth of information not captured by focusing solely on these events, potentially resulting in missed opportunities for care improvements.

RECENT FINDINGS

We review terms such as AEs and nonroutine events (NREs), and introduce the concept of unanticipated events (UEs), defined as events that deviate from intended care that may/may not have been caused by error, may/may not be preventable, and may/may not have caused injury to a patient. UEs incorporate AEs in addition to many other anesthetic events not routinely tracked, allowing for trend analysis over time and the identification of additional opportunities for quality improvement. We review both automated and self-reporting tools that currently exist to capture this often-neglected wealth of data. Finally, we discuss the responsibility of quality/safety leaders for data monitoring.

SUMMARY

Consistent reporting and monitoring for trends related to UEs could allow departments to identify risks and mitigate harm before it occurs. We review various proposed methods to expand data collection, and recommend anesthesia practices pursue UE tracking through department-specific reporting interfaces.

Nontechnical Skills for Intraoperative Team Members

Nontechnical skills, defined as the set of cognitive and social skills used by individuals and teams to reduce error and improve performance in complex systems, have become increasingly recognized as a key contributor to patient safety. Efforts to characterize, quantify, and teach nontechnical skills in the context of perioperative care continue to evolve. This review article summarizes the essential behaviors for safety, described in taxonomies for nontechnical skills assessments developed for intraoperative clinical team members (eg, surgeons, anesthesiologists, scrub practitioners, perfusionists). Furthermore, the authors describe emerging methods to advance understanding of the impact of nontechnical skills on perioperative outcomes.

Decision-making in anesthesiology: will artificial intelligence make intraoperative care safer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article explores the impact of recent applications of artificial intelligence on clinical anesthesiologists' decision-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Naturalistic decision-making, a rich research field that aims to understand how cognitive work is accomplished in complex environments, provides insight into anesthesiologists' decision processes. Due to the complexity of clinical work and limits of human decision-making (e.g. fatigue, distraction, and cognitive biases), attention on the role of artificial intelligence to support anesthesiologists' decision-making has grown. Artificial intelligence, a computer's ability to perform human-like cognitive functions, is increasingly used in anesthesiology. Examples include aiding in the prediction of intraoperative hypotension and postoperative complications, as well as enhancing structure localization for regional and neuraxial anesthesia through artificial intelligence integration with ultrasound.

SUMMARY

To fully realize the benefits of artificial intelligence in anesthesiology, several important considerations must be addressed, including its usability and workflow integration, appropriate level of trust placed on artificial intelligence, its impact on decision-making, the potential de-skilling of practitioners, and issues of accountability. Further research is needed to enhance anesthesiologists' clinical decision-making in collaboration with artificial intelligence.

Discrepancy in Reporting of Perioperative Complications: A Retrospective Observational Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the discrepancy between perioperative complications, prospectively recorded during a cohort study versus retrospectively from health records.

BACKGROUND

Perioperative adverse events are relevant for patient outcome, but incomplete reporting is common.

METHODS

Two physicians independently recorded all intraoperative adverse events according to ClassIntra and all postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification based on all available health records. These retrospective assessments were compared with the number and severity of those prospectively assessed in the same patients during their inclusion in 1 center of a prospective multicenter cohort study.

RESULTS

Interrater agreement between both physicians for retrospective recording was high [intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86, 0.91) for intraoperative and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85, 0.90) for postoperative complications]. In 320 patients, the incidence rate was higher retrospectively than prospectively for any intraoperative complication (incidence rate ratio: 1.79; 95% CI, 1.50, 2.13) and for any postoperative complication (incidence rate ratio: 2.21; 95% CI, 1.90, 2.56). In 71 patients, the severity of the most severe intraoperative complication was higher in the retrospective than in the prospective data collection, whereas in 69 the grading was lower. In 106 patients, the severity of the most severe postoperative complication was higher in the retrospective than in the prospective data collection, whereas in 19 the grading was lower.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a noticeable discrepancy in the number and severity of reported perioperative complications between these 2 data collection methods. On the basis of the double-blinded assessment of 2 independent raters, our study renders prospective underreporting more likely than retrospective overreporting.

Neuroanesthesiology Quality Improvement Reporting Patterns: A Tertiary Medical Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Understanding quality improvement (QI) reporting patterns is important for practice-based improvement and for prioritizing QI initiatives. The aim of this project was to identify major domains of neuroanesthesiology QI reports at a single academic institution with 2 hospital-based practice sites.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed institutional QI databases to identify reports from neuroanesthesia cases between 2013 and 2021. Each report was categorized into one of the 16 primary predefined QI domains; the QI report domains were ranked by frequency. Descriptive statistics are used to present the analysis.

RESULTS

Seven hundred three QI reports (3.2% of all cases) were submitted for the 22,248 neurosurgical and neuroradiology procedures during the study period. Most of the QI reports across the institution were in the domain of communication/documentation (28.4%). Both hospitals shared the same 6 top QI report domains, although the relative frequency of each domain differed between the 2 hospitals. Drug error was the top QI report domain at one hospital, representing 19.3% of that site's neuroanesthesia QI reports. Communication/documentation was the top domain at the other hospital, representing 34.7% of that site's reports. The other 4 shared top domains were equipment/device failure, oropharyngeal injury, skin injury, and vascular catheter dislodgement.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of neuroanesthesiology QI reports fell into 6 domains: drug error, communication/documentation, equipment/device failure, oropharyngeal injury, skin injury, and vascular catheter dislodgement. Similar analyses from other centers can guide generalizability and potential utility of using QI reporting domains to inform the development of neuroanesthesiology quality measures and reporting frameworks.

Understanding Patient and Clinician Reported Nonroutine Events in Ambulatory Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Nonroutine events (NREs, i.e., deviations from optimal care) can identify care process deficiencies and safety risks. Nonroutine events reported by clinicians have been shown to identify systems failures, but this methodology fails to capture the patient perspective. The objective of this prospective observational study is to understand the incidence and nature of patient- and clinician-reported NREs in ambulatory surgery.

METHODS

We interviewed patients about NREs that occurred during their perioperative care using a structured interview tool before discharge and in a 7-day follow-up call. Concurrently, we interviewed the clinicians caring for these patients immediately postoperatively to collect NREs. We trained 2 experienced clinicians and 2 patients to assess and code each reported NRE for type, theme, severity, and likelihood of reoccurrence (i.e., likelihood that the same event would occur for another patient).

RESULTS

One hundred one of 145 ambulatory surgery cases (70%) contained at least one NRE. Overall, 214 NREs were reported-88 by patients and 126 by clinicians. Cases containing clinician-reported NREs were associated with increased patient body mass index ( P = 0.023) and lower postcase patient ratings of being treated with respect ( P = 0.032). Cases containing patient-reported NREs were associated with longer case duration ( P = 0.040), higher postcase clinician frustration ratings ( P < 0.001), higher ratings of patient stress ( P = 0.019), and lower patient ratings of their quality of life ( P = 0.010), of the quality of clinician teamwork ( P = 0.010), being treated with respect ( P = 0.003), and being listened to carefully ( P = 0.012). Trained patient raters evaluated NRE severity significantly higher than did clinician raters ( P < 0.001), while clinicians rated recurrence likelihood significantly higher than patients for both clinician ( P = 0.032) and patient-reported NREs ( P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both patients and clinicians readily report events during clinical care that they believe deviate from optimal care expectations. These 2 primary stakeholders in safe, high-quality surgical care have different experiences and perspectives regarding NREs. The combination of patient- and clinician-reported NREs seems to be a promising patient-centered method of identifying healthcare system deficiencies and opportunities for improvement.

An ethnographic study on the impact of a novel telemedicine-based support system in the operating room

OBJECTIVE

The Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT) for operating rooms (ORs) remotely assesses the progress of surgeries and provides real-time perioperative risk alerts, communicating risk mitigation recommendations to bedside clinicians. We aim to identify and map ACT-OR nonroutine events (NREs)-risk-inducing or risk-mitigating workflow deviations-and ascertain ACT's impact on clinical workflow and patient safety.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used ethnographic methods including shadowing ACT and OR clinicians during 83 surgeries, artifact collection, chart reviews for decision alerts sent to the OR, and 10 clinician interviews. We used hybrid thematic analysis informed by a human-factors systems-oriented approach to assess ACT's role and impact on safety, conducting content analysis to assess NREs.

RESULTS

Across 83 cases, 469 risk alerts were triggered, and the ACT sent 280 care recommendations to the OR. 135 NREs were observed. Critical factors facilitating ACT's role in supporting patient safety included providing backup support and offering a fresh-eye perspective on OR decisions. Factors impeding ACT included message timing and ACT and OR clinician cognitive lapses. Suggestions for improvement included tailoring ACT message content (structure, timing, presentation) and incorporating predictive analytics for advanced planning.

DISCUSSION

ACT served as a safety net with remote surveillance features and as a learning healthcare system with feedback/auditing features. Supporting strategies include adaptive coordination and harnessing clinician/patient support to improve ACT's sustainability. Study insights inform future intraoperative telemedicine design considerations to mitigate safety risks.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating similar remote technology enhancement into routine perioperative care could markedly improve safety and quality for millions of surgical patients.

Effect of implementing an anesthesia nurse checklist in a safety and teamwork climate: quasi-experimental study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of implementing a Patient safety checklist: nursing in anesthetic procedure on the perception of safety climate and team climate of nurses and anesthesiologists from an operating room.

METHOD

Quasi-experimental study held in the operating room of a hospital in Brazil with a sample of nurses and anesthesiologists. The outcome was evaluated through the instruments "Safety Attitudes Questionnaire/Operating Room Version" and "Team Climate Inventory", applied before and after the implementation of a Patient safety checklist: nursing in anesthetic procedure by nurses. The mixed effects linear regression model was used to analyse the effect of the implementation.

RESULTS

Altogether, 19 (30.2%) nurses and 44 (69.8%) anesthesiologists participated in the study, implementing the Patient safety checklist: nursing in anesthetic procedure in 282 anesthesias. The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire/Operating Room Version score changed from 62.5 to 69.2, with modification among anesthesiologists in the domain "Perception of management" (p = 0.02). Between both professionals, the Team Climate Inventory score increased after the intervention (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the Patient safety checklist: nursing in anesthetic procedure changed the perception score of safety and teamwork climate, improving communication and collaborative work.

Definition and classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization are interventions used by many healthcare providers to manage musculoskeletal conditions. Although there are many reports of adverse events (or undesirable outcomes) following such interventions, there is no common definition for an adverse event or clarity on any severity classification. This impedes advances of patient safety initiatives and practice. This scoping review mapped the evidence of adverse event definitions and classification systems following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization for musculoskeletal conditions in adults.

METHODS

An electronic search of the following databases was performed from inception to February 2021: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ICL, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Open Grey and Open Theses and Dissertations. Studies including adults (18 to 65 years old) with a musculoskeletal condition receiving spinal or peripheral joint manipulation or mobilization and providing an adverse event definition and/or classification were included. All study designs of peer-reviewed publications were considered. Data from included studies were charted using a standardized data extraction form and synthesised using narrative analysis.

RESULTS

From 8248 identified studies, 98 were included in the final synthesis. A direct definition for an adverse event and/or classification system was provided in 69 studies, while 29 provided an indirect definition and/or classification system. The most common descriptors to define an adverse event were causality, symptom severity, onset and duration. Twenty-three studies that provided a classification system described only the end anchors (e.g., mild/minor and/or serious) of the classification while 26 described multiple categories (e.g., moderate, severe).

CONCLUSION

A vast array of terms, definition and classification systems were identified. There is no one common definition or classification for adverse events following spinal and peripheral joint manipulation and mobilization. Findings support the urgent need for consensus on the terms, definition and classification system for adverse events related to these interventions.

A pilot study to determine the incidence, type, and severity of non-routine events in neonates undergoing gastrostomy tube placement

BACKGROUND

Non-routine events (NRE) are defined as any suboptimal occurrences in a process being measured in the opinion of the reporter and comes from the field of human factors engineering. These typically occur well up-stream of an adverse event and NRE measurement has not been applied to the complex context of neonatal surgery. We sought to apply this novel safety event measurement methodology to neonates in the NICU undergoing gastrostomy tube placement.

METHODS

A prospective pilot study was conducted between November 2016 and August 2020 in the Level IV NICU and the pediatric operating rooms of an urban academic children's hospital to determine the incidence, severity, impact, and contributory factors of clinician-reported non-routine events (NREs, i.e., deviations from optimal care) and 30-day NSQIP occurrences in neonates receiving a G-tube.

RESULTS

Clinicians reported at least one NRE in 32 of 36 (89%) G-tube cases, averaging 3.0 (Standard deviation: 2.5) NRE reports per case. NSQIP-P review identified 7 cases (19%) with NSQIP-P occurrences and each of these cases had multiple reported NREs. One case in which NREs were not reported was without NSQIP-P occurrences. The odds ratio of having a NSQIP-P occurrence with the presence of an NRE was 0.695 (95% CI 0.06-17.04).

CONCLUSION

Despite being considered a "simple" operation, >80% of neonatal G-tube placement operations had at least one reported NRE by an operative team member. In this pilot study, NRE occurrence was not significantly associated with the subsequent reporting of an NSQIP-P occurrence. Understanding contributory factors of NREs that occur in neonatal surgery may promote surgical safety efforts and should be evaluated in larger and more diverse populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Composition and risk assessment of perioperative patient safety incidents reported by anesthesiologists from 2009 to 2019: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Patient safety incident (PSI) reporting has been an important means of improving patient safety and enhancing organizational quality control. Reports of anesthesia-related incidents are of great value for analysis to improve perioperative patient safety. However, the utilization of incident data is far from sufficient, especially in developing countries such as China.

Methods

All PSIs reported by anesthesiologists in a Chinese academic hospital between September 2009 and August 2019 were collected from the incident reporting system. We reviewed the freeform text reports, supplemented with information from the patient medical record system. Composition analysis and risk assessment were performed.

Results

In total, 847 PSIs were voluntarily reported by anesthesiologists during the study period among 452,974 anesthetic procedures, with a reported incidence of 0.17%. Patients with a worse ASA physical status were more likely to be involved in a PSI. The most common type of incident was related to the airway (N = 208, 27%), followed by the heart, brain and vascular system (N = 99, 13%) and pharmacological incidents (N = 79, 10%). Those preventable incidents with extreme or high risk were identified through risk assessment to serve as a reference for the implementation of more standard operating procedures by the department.

Conclusions

This study describes the characteristics of 847 PSIs voluntarily reported by anesthesiologists within eleven years in a Chinese academic hospital. Airway incidents constitute the majority of incidents reported by anesthesiologists. Underreporting is common in China, and the importance of summarizing and utilizing anesthesia incident data should be scrutinized.