Perceived barriers to computerised quality documentation during anaesthesia: a survey of anaesthesia staff

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.

Measuring and monitoring perioperative patient safety: a basic approach for clinicians

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent research points to considerable rates of preventable perioperative patient harm and anaesthesiologists' concerns about eroding patient safety. Anaesthesia has always been at the forefront of patient safety improvement initiatives. However, factual local safety improvement requires local measurement, which may be afflicted by barriers to data collection and improvement activities. Because many of these barriers are related to mandatory reporting, the focus of this review is on measurement methods that can be used by practicing anaesthesiologists as self-improvement tools, even independently from mandatory reporting, and using basic techniques widely available in most institutions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Four mutually complementary measurement approaches may be suited for local patient safety learning: incident and rate-based measurements, staff surveys and patient surveys. Reportedly, individual methods have helped to tailor problem solutions and to reduce patient harm, morbidity, and mortality.

SUMMARY

Considering the potential for perioperative patient safety measurements to improve patient outcomes, the absence of a generally accepted measurement standard and manifold barriers to reporting, a pragmatic approach to locally measuring patient safety appears advisable.