Surgical Error Compensation Claims as a Patient Safety Indicator: Causes and Economic Consequences in the Murcia Health System, 2002 to 2018

OBJECTIVES

Compensation claims are a useful source of information on patient safety research. The purpose of this study was to determine the main causes of surgical compensation claims and their financial impact on the health system.

METHODS

A descriptive observational study with analytical components was carried out on compensation claims brought against the surgical area of the Murcia Health System between 2002 and 2018. We analyzed the frequency, causes, consequences, locations and surgical settings of these claims, the time of judicial procedure, and compensation adjusted to the Consumer Price Index.

RESULTS

There were 1172 compensation claims. "orthopedic surgery and traumatology" (27.4%), "gynecology and obstetrics" (25.7%), and "general surgery" (17.2%) were the main surgical settings involved. The most frequent causes were surgical error (42.4%) and treatment error (30.9%). The main sequelae were musculoskeletal (20.0%), neurological (17.7%), and obstetric (17.7%). The average time from incident to resolution of claims was 6.3 years. A total of 20.1% of these claims were successful, particularly those involving retained surgical foreign bodies (71.4% successful claims; P < 0.001). The total compensation paid was €56,338,247 (an average of €17,207 per claim). Compensation was higher in cases with respiratory sequelae (median, 131,600; P = 0.033), death (75,916; P < 0.001), and neurological (60,000; P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Compensation claims associated with surgical procedures are made on a variety of grounds. They are drawn-out proceedings, and patients are only successful in 20% of cases.

Safe surgery during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has created a global pandemic. Surgical care has been impacted, with concerns raised around surgical safety, especially in terms of laparoscopic versus open surgery. Due to potential aerosol transmission of SARS-CoV-2, precautions during aerosol-generating procedures and production of surgical plume are paramount for the safety of surgical teams.

METHODS

A rapid review methodology was used with evidence sourced from PubMed, Departments of Health, surgical colleges and other health authorities. From this, a working group of expert surgeons developed recommendations for surgical safety in the current environment.

RESULTS

Pre-operative testing of surgical patients with reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction does not guarantee lack of infectivity due to a demonstrated false-negative rate of up to 30%. All bodily tissues and fluids should therefore be treated as a potential source of COVID-19 infection during operative management. Caution must be taken, especially when using an energy source that produces surgical plumes, and an appropriate capture device should also be used. Limiting the use of such devices or using lower energy devices is desirable. To reduce perceived risks association with desufflation of pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic surgery, an appropriate suction irrigator system, attached to a high-efficiency particulate air filter, should be used. Additionally, appropriate use of personal protective equipment by the surgical team is necessary during high-risk aerosol-generating procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

As a result of the rapid review, evidence-based guidance has been produced to support safe surgical practice.

South African Paediatric Surgical Outcomes Study: a 14-day prospective, observational cohort study of paediatric surgical patients

BACKGROUND

Children comprise a large proportion of the population in sub-Saharan Africa. The burden of paediatric surgical disease exceeds available resources in Africa, potentially increasing morbidity and mortality. There are few prospective paediatric perioperative outcomes studies, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

We conducted a 14-day multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of paediatric patients (aged <16 yrs) undergoing surgery in 43 government-funded hospitals in South Africa. The primary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital postoperative complications.

RESULTS

We recruited 2024 patients at 43 hospitals. The overall incidence of postoperative complications was 9.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.4-11.0]. The most common postoperative complications were infective (7.3%; 95% CI: 6.2-8.4%). In-hospital mortality rate was 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.5), of which nine of the deaths (41%) were in ASA physical status 1 and 2 patients. The preoperative risk factors independently associated with postoperative complications were ASA physcial status, urgency of surgery, severity of surgery, and an infective indication for surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk factors, frequency, and type of complications after paediatric surgery differ between LMICs and high-income countries. The in-hospital mortality is 10 times greater than in high-income countries. These findings should be used to develop strategies to improve paediatric surgical outcomes in LMICs, and support the need for larger prospective, observational paediatric surgical outcomes research in LMICs.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03367832.

Provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery

BACKGROUND

A consumer model of health supports that people undergoing elective surgery should be informed about the past operative performance of their surgeon before making two important decisions: 1. to consent to the proposed surgery, and 2. to have a particular doctor perform the surgery. This information arguably helps empower patients to participate in their care. While surgeons' performance data are available in some settings, there continues to be controversy over the provision of such data to patients, and the question of whether consumers should, or want to, be provided with this information.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of providing a surgeon's performance data to people considering elective surgery on patient-based and service utilisation outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

For the original review, we searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, 2009, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to 28 September 2009); EMBASE (Ovid) (1988 to 28 September 2009); PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to 28 September 2009); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to 20 October 2009); Current Contents (Ovid) (1992 to 23 November 2009); and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 20 October 2009).For this update, we searched: CENTRAL (2009 to 3 March 2014); MEDLINE (Ovid) (2009 to 3 March 2014); EMBASE (Ovid) (2009 to 3 March 2014); PsycINFO (Ovid) (2009 to 9 March 2014); CINAHL (EBSCO) (2009 to 9 March 2014), Current Contents (Web of Science) (November 2009 to 21 March 2014), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (2009 to 21 March 2014). We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs and controlled before and after studies (CBAs), in which an individual surgeon's performance data were provided to people considering elective surgery. We considered the CBAs for inclusion from 2009 onwards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (AH, SH) independently assessed all titles, abstracts, or both of retrieved citations. We identified no studies for inclusion. Consequently, we conducted no data collection or analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no studies that met the inclusion criteria; therefore, there are no results to report on the effect of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no studies reporting the impact of the provision of a surgeon's performance data for people considering elective surgery. This is an important finding in itself. While the public reporting of a surgeon's performance is not a new concept, the efficacy of this data for individual patients has not been empirically tested. A review of qualitative studies or new primary qualitative research may be useful to determine what interventions are currently in use and explore the attitudes of consumers and professionals towards such interventions.