• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

在瑞典全国性调查中发现的腹部手术中与外科和麻醉科人员之间沟通相关的安全隐患。

Safety hazards in abdominal surgery related to communication between surgical and anesthesia unit personnel found in a Swedish nationwide survey.

作者信息

Göransson Katarina, Lundberg Johan, Ljungqvist Olle, Ohlsson Elisabet, Sandblom Gabriel

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care and Perioperative Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Dept of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.

出版信息

Patient Saf Surg. 2016 Jan 13;10:2. doi: 10.1186/s13037-015-0089-y. eCollection 2016.

DOI:10.1186/s13037-015-0089-y
PMID:26766965
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4711058/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many adverse events occur due to poor communication between surgical and anesthesia unit personnel. The aim of this study was to identify strategies to reduce risks unveiled by a national survey on patient safety.

METHODS

During 2011-2015, specially trained survey teams visited the surgery departments at Swedish hospitals and documented routines concerning safety in abdominal surgery. The reports from the first seventeen visits were reviewed by an independent group in order to extract findings related to routines in communication between anesthesia and surgical unit personnel.

RESULTS

In general, routines regarding preoperative risk assessment were safe and well- coordinated. On the other hand, routines regarding medication prior to surgery, reporting between the different units, and systems for reporting and providing feedback on adverse events were poor or missing. Strategies with highest priority include: 1. a uniform national health declaration form; 2. consistent use of admission notes; 3. systems for documenting all important medical information, that is accessible to everyone; 4. a multidisciplinary forum for the evaluation of high-risk patients; 5. weekly and daily scheduling of surgical programs; 6. application of the WHO check list; 7. open dialog during surgery; 8. reporting based on SBAR; 9. oral and written reports from the surgeon to the postoperative unit; and 10. combined mortality and morbidity conferences.

CONCLUSION

One repeatedly occurring hazard endangering patient safety was related to communication between surgical and anesthesia unit personnel. Strategies to reduce this hazard are suggested, but further research is required to test their effectiveness.

摘要

背景

由于外科和麻醉科人员之间沟通不畅,许多不良事件时有发生。本研究旨在确定可降低一项全国患者安全调查所揭示风险的策略。

方法

在2011年至2015年期间,经过专门培训的调查小组走访了瑞典医院的外科科室,并记录了腹部手术安全方面的常规做法。前十七次走访的报告由一个独立小组进行审查,以便提取与麻醉科和外科科室人员沟通常规做法相关的调查结果。

结果

总体而言,术前风险评估的常规做法安全且协调良好。另一方面,术前用药、不同科室之间的报告以及不良事件报告和反馈系统方面的常规做法较差或缺失。最优先的策略包括:1. 统一的全国健康申报表格;2. 一致使用入院记录;3. 记录所有重要医疗信息且人人均可获取的系统;4. 评估高危患者的多学科论坛;5. 手术计划的每周和每日安排;6. 应用世界卫生组织检查表;7. 手术期间的开放对话;8. 基于SBAR的报告;9. 外科医生向术后科室的口头和书面报告;以及10. 死亡率和发病率联合会议。

结论

一个反复出现的危及患者安全的危险因素与外科和麻醉科人员之间的沟通有关。提出了降低这一危险因素的策略,但需要进一步研究以检验其有效性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4659/4711058/7a7672f6fb7c/13037_2015_89_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4659/4711058/633071306e98/13037_2015_89_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4659/4711058/7a7672f6fb7c/13037_2015_89_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4659/4711058/633071306e98/13037_2015_89_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/4659/4711058/7a7672f6fb7c/13037_2015_89_Fig2_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Safety hazards in abdominal surgery related to communication between surgical and anesthesia unit personnel found in a Swedish nationwide survey.在瑞典全国性调查中发现的腹部手术中与外科和麻醉科人员之间沟通相关的安全隐患。
Patient Saf Surg. 2016 Jan 13;10:2. doi: 10.1186/s13037-015-0089-y. eCollection 2016.
2
[Better communication between surgery and anesthesia may provide safer surgery. The exchange of information has been mapped within the framework of "Safe abdominal surgery"].手术与麻醉之间更好的沟通可能会带来更安全的手术。信息交流已在“安全腹部手术”框架内进行了规划。
Lakartidningen. 2015 Sep 1;112:DITT.
3
Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data.医疗服务量与健康结果:来自系统评价及意大利医院数据评估的证据
Epidemiol Prev. 2017 Sep-Dec;41(5-6 (Suppl 2)):1-128. doi: 10.19191/EP17.5-6S2.P001.100.
4
The measurement and monitoring of surgical adverse events.手术不良事件的测量与监测
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(22):1-194. doi: 10.3310/hta5220.
5
[Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data].[容量与健康结果:来自系统评价和意大利医院数据评估的证据]
Epidemiol Prev. 2013 Mar-Jun;37(2-3 Suppl 2):1-100.
6
7
SBAR Tool Implementation to Advance Communication, Teamwork, and the Perception of Patient Safety Culture.实施SBAR工具以促进沟通、团队合作及对患者安全文化的认知。
Creat Nurs. 2018 May 1;24(2):116-123. doi: 10.1891/1078-4535.24.2.116.
8
The Thai Anesthesia Incidents Study (THAI Study) of anesthetic outcomes: II. Anesthetic profiles and adverse events.泰国麻醉事件研究(THAI研究)的麻醉结果:II. 麻醉概况与不良事件。
J Med Assoc Thai. 2005 Nov;88 Suppl 7:S14-29.
9
10
Reporting and classification of patient safety events in a cardiothoracic intensive care unit and cardiothoracic postoperative care unit.心胸重症监护病房和心胸外科术后护理病房中患者安全事件的报告与分类
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005 Oct;130(4):1137. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.06.003.

引用本文的文献

1
Effect of the Green Cross method on patient safety culture in a postanaesthesia care unit: a longitudinal quasi-experimental study.绿色十字方法对麻醉后护理单元患者安全文化的影响:一项纵向准实验研究。
BMJ Open Qual. 2024 Oct 2;13(4):e002964. doi: 10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002964.

本文引用的文献

1
Influence of adverse drug events on morbidity and mortality in intensive care units: the JADE study.不良药物事件对重症监护病房发病率和死亡率的影响:JADE研究。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Dec;26(6):573-8. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu081. Epub 2014 Sep 5.
2
Harnessing implementation science to improve care quality and patient safety: a systematic review of targeted literature.利用实施科学提高护理质量和患者安全:对相关文献的系统评价
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Jun;26(3):321-9. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu047. Epub 2014 May 5.
3
Introduction of surgical safety checklists in Ontario, Canada.
加拿大安大略省引入手术安全检查表。
N Engl J Med. 2014 Mar 13;370(11):1029-38. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1308261.
4
A checklist for patient safety rounds at the care pathway level.护理路径层面患者安全巡查清单。
Int J Qual Health Care. 2014 Apr;26 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):36-46. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzu019. Epub 2014 Mar 9.
5
ERAS--enhanced recovery after surgery: moving evidence-based perioperative care to practice.加速康复外科——手术后加速康复:将基于证据的围手术期护理付诸实践。
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014 Jul;38(5):559-66. doi: 10.1177/0148607114523451. Epub 2014 Feb 24.
6
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist on postoperative complications.系统评价和荟萃分析世界卫生组织手术安全检查表对术后并发症的影响。
Br J Surg. 2014 Feb;101(3):150-8. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9381.
7
Cost-effectiveness of the implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for colorectal surgery.结直肠手术中实施强化康复方案的成本效益分析。
Br J Surg. 2013 Jul;100(8):1108-14. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9184.
8
Guidelines for perioperative care in elective colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society recommendations.择期结肠手术围手术期护理指南:术后加速康复(ERAS®)协会建议。
Clin Nutr. 2012 Dec;31(6):783-800. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2012.08.013. Epub 2012 Sep 28.
9
Failures in communication and information transfer across the surgical care pathway: interview study.手术护理路径中沟通和信息传递的失败:访谈研究。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2012 Oct;21(10):843-9. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-000886. Epub 2012 Jul 7.
10
Effects of the introduction of the WHO "Surgical Safety Checklist" on in-hospital mortality: a cohort study.WHO“手术安全检查表”引入对院内死亡率的影响:一项队列研究。
Ann Surg. 2012 Jan;255(1):44-9. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31823779ae.