Anesthesia Adverse Events Voluntarily Reported in the Veterans Health Administration and Lessons Learned

Look-alike medications in the perioperative setting: scoping review of medication incidents and risk reduction interventions

BACKGROUND

Look-alike medications, where ampoules or vials of intravenous medications look similar, may increase the risk of medication errors in the perioperative setting.

AIM

This scoping review aimed to identify and explore the issues related to look-alike medication incidents in the perioperative setting and the reported risk reduction interventions.

METHOD

Eight databases were searched including: CINAHL Complete, Embase, OVID Emcare, Pubmed, Scopus, Informit, Cochrane and Prospero and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Key search terms included anaesthesia, adverse drug event, drug error or medication error, look alike sound alike, operating theatres and pharmacy. Title and abstracts were screened independently and findings were extracted using validated tools in collaboration and consensus with co-authors.

RESULTS

A total of 2567 records were identified to 4th July 2022; however only 18 publications met the inclusion criteria. Publication types consisted of case reports, letters to the editor, multimodal quality improvement activities or survey/audits, a controlled simulation study and one randomised clinical trial. Risk reduction intervention themes identified included regulation, procurement, standardisation of storage, labelling, environmental factors, teamwork factors and the safe administration.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted challenges with look-alike medications in the perioperative setting and identified interventions for risk reduction. Key interventions did not involve technology-based solutions and further research is required to assess their effectiveness in preventing patient harm.

Exploring the "Black Box" of Recommendation Generation in Local Health Care Incident Investigations: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Incident investigation remains a cornerstone of patient safety management and improvement, with recommendations meant to drive action and improvement. There is little empirical evidence about how-in real-world hospital settings-recommendations are generated or judged for effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

Our research questions, concerning internal hospital investigations, were as follows: (1) What approaches to incident investigation are used before the generation of recommendations? (2) What are the processes for generating recommendations after a patient safety incident investigation? (3) What are the number and types of recommendations proposed? (4) What criteria are used, by hospitals or study authors, to assess the quality or strength of recommendations made?

METHODS

Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a scoping review. Studies were included if they reported data from investigations undertaken and recommendations generated within hospitals. Review questions were answered with content analysis, and extracted recommendations were categorized and counted.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Root cause analysis was the dominant investigation approach, but methods for recommendation generation were unclear. A total of 4579 recommendations were extracted, largely focusing on individuals' behavior rather than addressing deficiencies in systems (<7% classified as strong). Included studies reported recommendation effectiveness as judged against predefined "action" hierarchies or by incident recurrence, which was not comprehensively reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the ubiquity of incident investigation, there is a surprising lack of evidence concerning how recommendation generation is or should be undertaken. Little evidence is presented to show that investigations or recommendations result in improved care quality or safety. We contend that, although incident investigations remain foundational to patient safety, more enquiry is needed about how this important work is actually achieved and whether it can contribute to improving quality of care.

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.

Anaesthesia cart standardisation expedites supply retrieval: A simulation study with patient safety implications

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesia providers often work at a variety of perioperative and procedural locations. However, the layout of anaesthesia supplies and equipment is often inconsistent from operating theatre to operating theatre. This lack of standardisation may create delays in identification and retrieval of supplies. The primary goal of this study was to compare the duration of time required by anaesthesia providers to identify and retrieve a list of anaesthesia supplies prior to and after standardisation of the location for anaesthesia supplies.

METHODS

In this observational simulation study, a pre-set list of ten items that may be rapidly needed when caring for patients was created. Volunteer anaesthesia providers were then timed retrieving these in two different operating theatres before and after anaesthesia cart standardisation. Cumulative time to retrieve all items was recorded in seconds. Participants were evaluated regarding mean time to compete the task before and after supply standardisation. Paired t-test were used to assess mean time to retrieve the ten items both before and after standardisation and between the two operating theatre locations. Providers were also evaluated on their familiarity with the operating theatre location, and this was assessed by chi-square tests of homogeneity. Multivariable generalised linear modelling was used to evaluate the impact of covariables on the change in time.

RESULTS

Data from 18 anaesthesia providers was collected. Mean (95% confidence interval) time in seconds to retrieve items was decreased by 45% after supply standardisation (105.3 [88.6, 121.9 vs 57.1 [50.8, 63.5]; p < 0.001) with a mean (95% confidence interval) reduction of 48.1 seconds (30.6, 65.6; p < 0.001). Providers who worked primarily at that location also had faster times to complete the task. In a multivariable regression model that considered both the provider's familiarity with the location and the simulation attempt (Operating theatre 1 or Operating theatre 2), the mean time to retrieve all items remained reduced by 48.1 seconds (95% confidence interval: 31.9-64.4) after supply standardisation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Standardisation of the location for anaesthesia supplies decreased the time for on-demand item retrieval. Retrieval times were most improved after standardisation for providers in an unfamiliar area. Supply standardisation of anaesthesia carts across perioperative and procedural sites could result in more timely interventions in patient care and efficiency.

Planned improvement actions based on patient safety incident reports in Estonian hospitals: a document analysis

AIM

Aim of this study was to describe and analyse associations of incidents and their improvement actions in hospital setting.

METHODS

It was a retrospective document analysis of incident reporting systems' reports registered during 2018-2019 in two Estonian regional hospitals. Data were extracted, organised, quantified and analysed by statistical methods.

RESULTS

In total, 1973 incident reports were analysed. The most commonly reported incidents were related to patient violent or self-harming behaviour (n=587), followed by patient accidents (n=379), and 40% of all incidents were non-harm incidents (n=782). Improvement actions were documented in 83% (n=1643) of all the reports and they were focused on (1) direct patient care, (2) staff-related actions; (3) equipment and general protocols and (4) environment and organisational issues. Improvement actions were mostly associated with medication and transfusion treatment and targeted to staff. The second often associated improvement actions were related to patient accidents and were mostly focused on that particular patient's further care. Improvement actions were mostly planned for incidents with moderate and mild harm, and for incidents involving children and adolescents.

CONCLUSION

Patient safety incidents-related improvement actions need to be considered as a strategy for long-term development in patient safety in organisations. It is vital for patient safety that the planned changes related to the reporting will be documented and implemented more visibly. As a result, it will boost the confidence in managers' work and strengthens all staff's commitment to patient safety initiatives in an organisation.

Sharing Lessons Learned to Prevent Adverse Events in Anesthesiology Nationwide

OBJECTIVES

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) lessons learned process for Anesthesia adverse events was developed to alert the field to the occurrences and prevention of actual adverse events. This article details this quality improvement project and perceived impact.

METHODS

As part of ongoing quality improvement, root cause analysis related to anesthesiology care are routinely reported to the VHA National Center for Patient Safety. Since May 2012, the National Anesthesia Service subject matter experts, in collaboration with National Center for Patient Safety, review actual adverse events in anesthesiology and detailed lessons learned are developed. A survey of anesthesiology chiefs to determine perceived usefulness and accessibility of the project was conducted in April 2018.

RESULTS

The distributed survey yielded a response rate of 69% (84/122). Most of those who have seen the lessons learned (85%, 71/84) found them valuable. Ninety percent of those aware of the lessons learned (64/71) shared them with staff and 75% (53/71) reported a changed or reinforced patient safety behavior in their facility. The lessons learned provided 72% (51/71) of chiefs with new knowledge about patient safety and 75% (53/71) gained new knowledge for preventing adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide VHA anesthesiology lessons learned project illustrates the tenets of a learning organization. implementing team and systems-based safeguards to mitigate risk of harm from inevitable human error. Sharing lessons learned provides opportunities for clinician peer-to-peer learning, communication, and proactive approaches to prevent future similar errors.

Risk reduction in anesthesia and sedation-An analysis of process improvement towards zero adverse events

Introduction:

Anesthesia is a complex domain that is highly technical and skill based. Primary Care Physicians often have to do the initial evaluation of surgical patients they encounter during their daily practice before referring them to the surgical team. Thus, the Primary Care Physician's preliminary knowledge in anesthesia processes, risks involved and interventions that can be done to minimize these risks can improve patient-centered care and ultimately patient safety.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conceptualized and conducted in the Department of Anesthesiology from January 2018 to December 2018 in a 600 bed Multispecialty teaching hospital in Bihar, India. The study aimed towards Anesthesia Care related Risk Identification and Reduction and encompassed process improvements.

Results:

Risk Severity Analysis of the Critical Steps of Anesthesia Care was done. The average Hazard Score reduced from 21.59 during January 2018 to March 2018 to 8.23 during April 2018 to June 2018 subsequently to 3.53 during July 2018 to September 2018 and finally to 2.12 during October 2018 to December 2018. Thus, there was an overall reduction of 90.18% in the Hazard Score from April'18 to June'18 quarter to October 2018 to December 2018 quarter.

Conclusion:

Adverse Anesthesia/Sedation Events reported during the period from January 2019 to December 2019 was “Zero”. A systematic approach towards Risk Reduction not only lead to reduction in Hazard Score and Process Improvement but also made the Anesthesia Care Safe which is evident in the consistency of reporting “Zero” Adverse Anesthesia/Sedation Events for the last one year.

Incidence and Classification of Nonroutine Events during Anesthesia Care

BACKGROUND

A nonroutine event is any aspect of clinical care perceived by clinicians or trained observers as a deviation from optimal care based on the context of the clinical situation. The authors sought to delineate the incidence and nature of intraoperative nonroutine events during anesthesia care.

METHODS

The authors prospectively collected audio, video, and relevant clinical information on 556 cases at three academic hospitals from 1998 to 2004. In addition to direct observation, anesthesia providers were surveyed for nonroutine event occurrence and details at the end of each study case. For the 511 cases with reviewable video, 400 cases had no reported nonroutine events and 111 cases had at least one nonroutine event reported. Each nonroutine event was analyzed by trained anesthesiologists. Rater reliability assessment, comparisons (nonroutine event vs. no event) of patient and case variables were performed.

RESULTS

Of 511 cases, 111 (21.7%) contained 173 nonroutine events; 35.1% of event-containing cases had more than one nonroutine event. Of the 173 events, 69.4% were rated as having patient impact and 12.7% involved patient injury. Longer case duration (25th vs. 75th percentile; odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.15 to 2.93; P = 0.032) and presence of a comorbid diagnosis (odds ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.40; P = 0.001) were associated with nonroutine events. Common contributory factors were related to the patient (63.6% [110 of 173]) and anesthesia provider (59.0% [102 of 173]) categories. The most common patient impact events involved the cardiovascular system (37.4% [64 of 171]), airway (33.3% [57 of 171]), and human factors, drugs, or equipment (31.0% [53 of 171]).

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes characteristics of intraoperative nonroutine events in a cohort of cases at three academic hospitals. Nonroutine event-containing cases were commonly associated with patient impact and injury. Thus, nonroutine event monitoring in conjunction with traditional error reporting may enhance our understanding of potential intraoperative failure modes to guide prospective safety interventions.

Association of Checklist Use in Endotracheal Intubation With Clinically Important Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients is a high-risk procedure. Checklists have been advocated to improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether the available evidence supports an association of use of airway checklists with improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation.

DATA SOURCES

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed (OVID), Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and SCOPUS were searched without limitations using the Medical Subject Heading terms and keywords airway; management; airway management; intubation, intratracheal; checklist; and quality improvement to identify studies published between January 1, 1960, and June 1, 2019. A supplementary search of the gray literature was performed, including conference abstracts and clinical trial registries.

STUDY SELECTION

Full-text reviews were performed to determine final eligibility for inclusion. Included studies were randomized clinical trials or observational human studies that compared checklist use with any comparator for endotracheal intubation and assessed 1 of the predefined outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials. Study results were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model. Reporting of this study follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success and known complications of endotracheal intubation, including esophageal intubation, hypoxia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest.

RESULTS

The search identified 1649 unique citations of which 11 (3261 patients) met the inclusion criteria. One randomized clinical trial and 3 observational studies had a low risk of bias. Checklist use was not associated with decreased mortality (5 studies [2095 patients]; relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.80-1.18; I2 = 0%). Checklist use was associated with a decrease in hypoxic events (8 studies [3010 patients]; relative risk, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95; I2 = 33%) but no other secondary outcomes. Studies with a low risk of bias did not demonstrate decreased hypoxia associated with checklist use.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that use of airway checklists is not associated with improved clinical outcomes during and after endotracheal intubation, which may affect practitioners' decision to use checklists in this setting.

Global PRoMiSe (Perioperative Recommendations for Medication Safety): protocol for a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Medication errors (MEs), which occur commonly in the perioperative period, have the potential to cause patient harm or death. Many published recommendations exist for preventing perioperative MEs; however, many of these recommendations conflict and are often not applicable to middle-income and low-income countries. The goal of this study is to develop and disseminate consensus-based recommendations for perioperative medication safety that are tailored to country income level.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The primary site of this mixed-methods study is Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. Participants include a minimum of 108 international medication safety experts, 27 from each of the World Bank's four country income groups (high, upper-middle, lower-middle and low-income). Using the Delphi method, participants will rate the appropriateness of candidate medication safety recommendations by completing online surveys using RedCAP. We will use Condorcet ranking methods to prioritise the final recommendations for each country income group. We will execute a comprehensive dissemination strategy for the recommendations across each country income group. Finally, we will conduct semistructured interviews with our participants to evaluate the initial adoption and implementation of the recommendations in each country income group.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Human Research Committee/Institutional Review Board at Partners Healthcare (2019P003567). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04240301.

Preoperative Assessment of Older Adults

Older patients undergoing surgery have reduced physiologic reserve caused by the combined impact of physiologic age-related changes and the increased burden of comorbid conditions. The preoperative assessment of older patients is directed at evaluating the patient's functional reserve and identifying opportunities to minimize any potential for complications. In addition to a standard preoperative evaluation that includes cardiac risk and a systematic review of systems, the evaluation should be supplemented with a review of geriatric syndromes. Age-based laboratory testing protocols can lead to unnecessary testing, and all testing should be requested if indicated by underlying disease and surgical risk.

Root Cause Analysis of Oncology Adverse Events in the Veterans Health Administration

PURPOSE

Oncology providers are leaders in patient safety. Despite their efforts, oncology-related medical errors still occur, sometimes resulting in patient injury or death. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) National Center of Patient Safety used data obtained from root cause analysis (RCA) to determine how and why these adverse events occurred in the VHA, and how to prevent future reoccurrence. This study details the types of oncology adverse events reported in VHA hospitals and their root causes and suggests actions for prevention and improvement.

METHODS

We searched the National Center for Patient Safety adverse event reporting database for RCA related to oncology care from October 1, 2013, to September 8, 2017, to identify event types, root causes, severity of outcomes, care processes, and suggested actions. Two independent reviewers coded these variables, and inter-rater agreement was calculated by κ statistic. Variables were evaluated using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 48 RCA reports that specifically involved an oncology provider. Event types included care delays (39.5% [n = 19]), issues with chemotherapy (25% [n = 12]) and radiation (12.5% [n = 6]), other (12.5% [n = 6]), and suicide (10.5% [n = 5]). Of the 48 events, 27.1% (n = 13) resulted in death, 4.2% (n = 2) in severe harm, 18.8% (n = 9) in temporary harm, 20.8% (n = 10) in minimal harm, and 2.1% (n = 1) in no harm. The majority of root causes identified a need to improve care processes and policies, interdisciplinary communication, and care coordination.

CONCLUSION

This analysis highlights an opportunity to implement system-wide changes to prevent similar events from reoccurring. These actions include comprehensive cancer clinics, usability testing of medical equipment, and standardization of processes and policies. Additional studies are necessary to assess oncologic adverse events across specialties.