Frey B, Kehrer B, Losa M, Braun H, Berweger L, Micallef J, Ebenberger M
Intensive Care Unit, Ostschweizer Kinderspital, Claudiusstrasse 6, CH-9006 St.Gallen, Switzerland.
Intensive Care Med. 2000 Jan;26(1):69-74. doi: 10.1007/s001340050014.
To examine the occurrence of critical incidents (CIs) in order to improve quality of care.
Prospective survey.
Multidisciplinary, neonatal-pediatric intensive care unit (ICU) of a non-university, teaching children's hospital.
Four hundred and sixty-seven admissions over a 1-year period.
A CI is any event which could have reduced, or did reduce, the safety margin for the patient. Comprehensive, anonymous, non-punitive CI monitoring was undertaken. CI severity with respect to actual patient harm was graded: major (score 3), moderate (2) or minor (1). The system approach incorporates the philosophy that errors are evidence of deficiencies in systems, not in people. We undertook 2-monthly analyses of CIs.
There were 211 CI reports: 30 % major, 25 % moderate, 45 % minor. The CI categories were management/environment 29 %, drugs 29 %, procedures 18 %, respiration 14 %, equipment dysfunction 7 %, nosocomial infections 3 %. The respiratory CIs were the most severe, the drug-related CIs the least severe (score mean, SD: 2.9, 0.26 vs 1.4, 0.76; p < 0.001). However, 20 out of 62 drug-related CIs were potentially life-threatening. Thirteen percent of drug CIs were decimal point errors. Eleven of the 29 respiratory CIs were accidental extubations (2.6/100 ventilator days). CIs were most often precipitated by consultants (32 %), followed by residents (23 %, over-represented in drug CIs, 22/62) and specialized nurses (21 %). Doctors had a greater proportion of major CIs than nurses (p < 0.01). Fifty percent of the CIs were detected by routine checks. The most important method of detection was patient inspection (44 %), alarms accounted for only 10 %. Contributing factors were human errors (63 %), communication failure (14 %), organizational problems (10 %), equipment dysfunction (7 %) and milieu (3 %).
CIs are very common in pediatric intensive care. Knowledge of them is a precious source for quality improvement through changes in the system.
检查危急事件(CI)的发生情况,以提高医疗质量。
前瞻性调查。
一所非大学附属教学儿童医院的多学科新生儿 - 儿科重症监护病房(ICU)。
1年期间收治的467名患者。
危急事件是指任何可能降低或确实降低了患者安全边际的事件。进行了全面、匿名、非惩罚性的危急事件监测。根据对实际患者伤害的程度对危急事件严重程度进行分级:严重(评分3分)、中度(2分)或轻度(1分)。该系统方法秉持这样一种理念,即错误是系统缺陷的证据,而非人员问题。我们每两个月对危急事件进行一次分析。
共收到211份危急事件报告:30%为严重事件,25%为中度事件,45%为轻度事件。危急事件类别包括管理/环境(29%)、药物(29%)、操作(18%)、呼吸(14%)、设备故障(7%)、医院感染(3%)。呼吸类危急事件最为严重,药物相关的危急事件最不严重(平均分,标准差:2.9,0.26对比1.4,0.76;p<0.001)。然而,62起药物相关危急事件中有20起可能危及生命。13%的药物危急事件是小数点错误。29起呼吸类危急事件中有11起是意外拔管(每100个呼吸机日2.6次)。危急事件最常由顾问引发(32%),其次是住院医师(23%,在药物相关危急事件中占比过高,22/62)和专科护士(21%)。医生引发的严重危急事件比例高于护士(p<0.01)。50%的危急事件通过常规检查发现。最重要的发现方法是对患者的检查(44%),警报仅占10%。促成因素包括人为错误(63%)、沟通失败(14%)、组织问题(10%)、设备故障(7%)和环境因素(3%)。
危急事件在儿科重症监护中非常常见。了解这些事件是通过系统变革提高医疗质量的宝贵源泉。