The critical role of learning from investigating and debriefing adverse events

The Evidence-Based Medicine Management of Endometriosis Should Be Updated for the Limitations of Trial Evidence, the Multivariability of Decisions, Collective Experience, Heuristics, and Bayesian Thinking

Background/Objectives: The diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis should be based on the best available evidence. Emphasising the risk of bias, the pyramid of evidence has the double-blind, randomised controlled trial and its meta-analyses on top. After the grading of all evidence by a group of experts, clinical guidelines are formulated using well-defined rules. Unfortunately, the impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) on the management of endometriosis has been limited and, possibly, occasionally harmful. Methods: For this research, the inherent problems of diagnosis and treatment were discussed by a working group of endometriosis and EBM specialists, and the relevant literature was reviewed. Results: Most clinical decisions are multivariable, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot handle multivariability because adopting a factorial design would require prohibitively large cohorts and create randomization problems. Single-factor RCTs represent a simplification of the clinical reality. Heuristics and intuition are both important for training and decision-making in surgery; experience, Bayesian thinking, and learning from the past are seldom considered. Black swan events or severe complications and accidents are marginally discussed in EBM since trial evidence is limited for rare medical events. Conclusions: The limitations of EBM for managing endometriosis and the complementarity of multivariability, heuristics, Bayesian thinking, and experience should be recognized. Especially in surgery, the value of training and heuristics, as well as the importance of documenting the collective experience and of the prevention of complications, are fundamental. These additions to EBM and guidelines will be useful in changing the Wild West mentality of surgery resulting from the limited scope of EBM data because of the inherent multivariability, combined with the low number of similar interventions.

Ten misconceptions regarding decision-making in critical care

Diagnostic errors are prevalent in critical care practice and are associated with patient harm and costs for providers and the healthcare system. Patient complexity, illness severity, and the urgency in initiating proper treatment all contribute to decision-making errors. Clinician-related factors such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and inexperience further interfere with effective decision-making. Cognitive science has provided insight into the clinical decision-making process that can be used to reduce error. This evidence-based review discusses ten common misconceptions regarding critical care decision-making. By understanding how practitioners make clinical decisions and examining how errors occur, strategies may be developed and implemented to decrease errors in Decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

A toolkit for individualizing interventions to mitigate second-victim syndrome in a diverse surgery community

Adverse outcomes are an inevitable consequence of surgical care. The term "second victim" was introduced by Wu to describe the emotional trauma experienced by a clinician who feels responsibility for an adverse clinical outcome. Second victims may feel shame, guilt, sadness, and a crisis of confidence. Surgeons rarely seek professional support following an adverse event but are more likely to confide in colleagues. Surgeons who represent groups traditionally underrepresented in medicine may be less likely to seek assistance following an adverse clinical outcome. There is a need for surgeons to have sufficient training to provide peer-to-peer support for wounded colleagues. The PEARLS Toolkit provides a blueprint toward this end.

A success story of clinical debriefings: lessons learned to promote impact and sustainability

The COVID-19 crisis impacted emergency departments (ED) unexpectedly and exposed teams to major issues within a constantly changing environment. We implemented post-shift clinical debriefings (CDs) from the beginning of the crisis to cope with adaptability needs. As the crisis diminished, clinicians voiced a desire to maintain the post-shift CD program, but it had to be reshaped to succeed over the long term. A strategic committee, which included physician and nurse leadership and engaged front-line staff, designed and oversaw the implementation of CD. The CD structure was brief and followed a debriefing with a good judgment format. The aim of our program was to discover and integrate an organizational learning strategy to promote patient safety, clinicians' wellbeing, and engagement with the post-shift CD as the centerpiece. In this article, we describe how post-shift CD process was performed, lessons learned from its integration into our ED strategy to ensure value and sustainability and suggestions for adapting this process at other institutions. This novel application of debriefing was well received by staff and resulted in discovering multiple areas for improvement ranging from staff interpersonal interactions and team building to hospital wider quality improvement initiatives such as patient throughput.