Suppr超能文献

麻醉气体输送设备致患者损伤:封闭索赔更新。

Patient injuries from anesthesia gas delivery equipment: a closed claims update.

机构信息

* Fellow, ‡ Research Professor, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. † Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. § Professor, Departments of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, and Neurological Surgery (Adjunct), University of Washington.

出版信息

Anesthesiology. 2013 Oct;119(4):788-95. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182a10b5e.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Improvements in anesthesia gas delivery equipment and provider training may increase patient safety. The authors analyzed patient injuries related to gas delivery equipment claims from the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project database over the decades from 1970s to the 2000s.

METHODS

After the Institutional Review Board approval, the authors reviewed the Closed Claims Project database of 9,806 total claims. Inclusion criteria were general anesthesia for surgical or obstetric anesthesia care (n = 6,022). Anesthesia gas delivery equipment was defined as any device used to convey gas to or from (but not involving) the airway management device. Claims related to anesthesia gas delivery equipment were compared between time periods by chi-square test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

Anesthesia gas delivery claims decreased over the decades (P < 0.001) to 1% of claims in the 2000s. Outcomes in claims from 1990 to 2011 (n = 40) were less severe, with a greater proportion of awareness (n = 9, 23%; P = 0.003) and pneumothorax (n = 7, 18%; P = 0.047). Severe injuries (death/permanent brain damage) occurred in supplemental oxygen supply events outside the operating room, breathing circuit events, or ventilator mishaps. The majority (85%) of claims involved provider error with (n = 7) or without (n = 27) equipment failure. Thirty-five percent of claims were judged as preventable by preanesthesia machine check.

CONCLUSIONS

Gas delivery equipment claims in the Closed Claims Project database decreased in 1990-2011 compared with earlier decades. Provider error contributed to severe injury, especially with inadequate alarms, improvised oxygen delivery systems, and misdiagnosis or treatment of breathing circuit events.

摘要

背景

麻醉气体输送设备和提供者培训的改进可能会提高患者安全性。作者分析了 20 世纪 70 年代至 21 世纪几十年间,美国麻醉师协会(ASA)闭录索赔项目数据库中与气体输送设备索赔相关的患者伤害。

方法

在获得机构审查委员会批准后,作者回顾了包含 9806 项总索赔的闭录索赔项目数据库。纳入标准为用于外科或产科麻醉护理的全身麻醉(n=6022)。麻醉气体输送设备定义为任何用于向(但不涉及)气道管理设备输送气体或从其输送气体的设备。通过卡方检验、Fisher 精确检验和 Mann-Whitney U 检验比较不同时间段的麻醉气体输送设备索赔。

结果

在几十年内,麻醉气体输送设备索赔减少(P<0.001)至 21 世纪的 1%。1990 年至 2011 年(n=40)的索赔结果不太严重,警觉意识的比例更高(n=9,23%;P=0.003)和气胸(n=7,18%;P=0.047)。严重损伤(死亡/永久性脑损伤)发生在手术室外的补充氧气供应事件、呼吸回路事件或呼吸机故障中。大多数(85%)的索赔涉及提供者错误,其中(n=7)或不涉及(n=27)设备故障。35%的索赔被认为可通过麻醉前机器检查预防。

结论

与早期几十年相比,闭录索赔项目数据库中的气体输送设备索赔在 1990-2011 年有所减少。提供者错误导致了严重伤害,特别是由于缺乏警报、临时氧气输送系统以及对呼吸回路事件的误诊或治疗。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验