• 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

一种用于调查内镜检查中患者安全事件的三层方法:一家教学医院的4年经验。

A three-tiered approach to investigating patient safety incidents in endoscopy: 4-year experience in a teaching hospital.

作者信息

Berry Philip, Kotha Sreelakshmi, Tritto Giovanni, DeMartino Sabina

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, Guy's and St Thomas' Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

出版信息

Endosc Int Open. 2021 Aug;9(8):E1188-E1195. doi: 10.1055/a-1479-2556. Epub 2021 Jul 16.

DOI:10.1055/a-1479-2556
PMID:34447862
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8383084/
Abstract

Patient safety incidents (PSIs) in endoscopy, although infrequent, can lead to significant morbidity or mortality. There is no commonly agreed strategy to investigate PSIs. We describe a three-tiered approach to investigation to facilitate appropriate action, shared learning, and timely disclosure to patients as mandated in the UK health system by the Duty of Candor (DoC). PSIs were identified prospectively over a 3-year, 7-month period in a large teaching hospital. Level of investigation was agreed by a group of three senior clinicians. Levels of investigation comprised: 1) rapid desktop review; 2) departmental "mini-root cause analysis" (mini-RCA, developed internally); and 3) hospital-level RCA or mortality review. Of 63006 procedures there were 73 reported cases of significant harm. Eleven resulted in death. Thirty PSIs were related to hepatobiliary endoscopy, 17 to lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, and 26 to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Hospital-level RCA was performed in six cases, mini-RCA/mortality review in 14, and 53 were examined by the endoscopy lead. Findings were presented in an endoscopy user group (EUG) meeting. There was learning in relation to informed consent, pre-procedural radiology reviews, pre-procedural treatment, escalation planning, teamwork and communication, preparation of equipment, and recognition of delayed complications. Open and honest communication with patients and relatives was facilitated. The introduction of an endoscopy-tailored investigation tool, the mini-RCA, as part of a three-tiered approach, facilitated investigation, appropriate action, learning, and disclosure after PSIs.

摘要

内镜检查中的患者安全事件(PSI)虽不常见,但可能导致严重的发病或死亡。目前尚无普遍认可的调查PSI的策略。我们描述了一种三层调查方法,以促进采取适当行动、共同学习,并按照英国医疗系统中坦诚义务(DoC)的要求及时向患者披露信息。在一家大型教学医院对PSI进行了为期3年7个月的前瞻性识别。由三位资深临床医生组成的小组商定调查级别。调查级别包括:1)快速桌面审查;2)部门“迷你根本原因分析”(内部开发的迷你RCA);3)医院层面的RCA或死亡审查。在63006例手术中,有73例报告了严重伤害事件。其中11例导致死亡。30例PSI与肝胆内镜检查有关,17例与下消化道内镜检查有关,26例与上消化道内镜检查有关。6例进行了医院层面的RCA,14例进行了迷你RCA/死亡审查,53例由内镜检查负责人进行了检查。调查结果在内镜检查用户组(EUG)会议上进行了汇报。在知情同意、术前放射学检查、术前治疗、升级计划、团队合作与沟通、设备准备以及延迟并发症的识别等方面都有了经验教训。促进了与患者及家属的坦诚沟通。作为三层方法的一部分,引入了针对内镜检查的调查工具——迷你RCA,促进了PSI后的调查、适当行动、学习和信息披露。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9568/8383084/b9f5acf4c432/10-1055-a-1479-2556-i2222ei1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9568/8383084/b9f5acf4c432/10-1055-a-1479-2556-i2222ei1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9568/8383084/b9f5acf4c432/10-1055-a-1479-2556-i2222ei1.jpg

相似文献

1
A three-tiered approach to investigating patient safety incidents in endoscopy: 4-year experience in a teaching hospital.一种用于调查内镜检查中患者安全事件的三层方法:一家教学医院的4年经验。
Endosc Int Open. 2021 Aug;9(8):E1188-E1195. doi: 10.1055/a-1479-2556. Epub 2021 Jul 16.
2
'Case of the month': a novel way to learn from endoscopy-related patient safety incidents.“月度病例”:一种从内镜检查相关患者安全事件中学习的新方法。
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2020 Oct 9;12(7):636-643. doi: 10.1136/flgastro-2020-101600. eCollection 2021.
3
A prospective study of patient safety incidents in gastrointestinal endoscopy.一项关于胃肠内镜检查中患者安全事件的前瞻性研究。
Endosc Int Open. 2017 Jan;5(1):E83-E89. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-117219. Epub 2016 Nov 17.
4
Improving compliance with the duty of candour: 5-year experience within an endoscopy department.提高坦诚义务的依从性:内镜科五年经验
Postgrad Med J. 2023 Jul 21;99(1174):928-933. doi: 10.1136/pmj-2022-141930.
5
The relationship between the perception of open disclosure of patient safety incidents, perception of patient safety culture, and ethical awareness in nurses.护士对患者安全事件公开披露的认知、对患者安全文化的认知与道德意识之间的关系。
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 Oct 27;21(1):104. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00546-7.
6
Can Patient Safety Incident Reports Be Used to Compare Hospital Safety? Results from a Quantitative Analysis of the English National Reporting and Learning System Data.患者安全事件报告能否用于比较医院安全性?对英国国家报告与学习系统数据的定量分析结果
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 9;10(12):e0144107. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0144107. eCollection 2015.
7
[Patient safety in psychiatric hospitalization - What incidents are reported and managed?].[精神科住院治疗中的患者安全——报告和处理了哪些事件?]
J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Sep-Oct;33(5):290-297. doi: 10.1016/j.jhqr.2018.06.004. Epub 2018 Oct 15.
8
Occurrence of patient safety incidents during cancer screening: A cross-sectional investigation of the general public.癌症筛查期间患者安全事件的发生:一项对公众的横断面调查。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2022 Oct 28;101(43):e31284. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000031284.
9
10
Characterising the nature of clinical incidents reported across a tertiary health service: a retrospective audit.描述一家三级保健服务机构报告的临床事件的性质:回顾性审计。
Aust Health Rev. 2021 Aug;45(4):447-454. doi: 10.1071/AH20271.

引用本文的文献

1
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Among Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in the Endoscopy Unit of a Tertiary-Care Hospital.三级医院内镜科接受胃肠道内镜检查患者的知识、态度和行为
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2025 Jul 5;19:1923-1935. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S524039. eCollection 2025.
2
How Were Patient Safety Incidents Responded to, Investigated, and Learned From Within the English National Health Service Before the Implementation of the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework? A Rapid Review.在《患者安全事件应对框架》实施之前,英国国家医疗服务体系是如何应对、调查和从中吸取教训的?一项快速综述。
J Patient Saf. 2025 Aug 1;21(5):e42-e55. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000001349. Epub 2025 May 9.
3

本文引用的文献

1
A prospective study of patient safety incidents in gastrointestinal endoscopy.一项关于胃肠内镜检查中患者安全事件的前瞻性研究。
Endosc Int Open. 2017 Jan;5(1):E83-E89. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-117219. Epub 2016 Nov 17.
2
The problem with root cause analysis.根本原因分析的问题。
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 May;26(5):417-422. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005511. Epub 2016 Jun 23.
3
A Tool for the Concise Analysis of Patient Safety Incidents.一种用于患者安全事件简明分析的工具。
Proportionate patient safety incident reviews: making them less complicated.
成比例的患者安全事件审查:使其不那么复杂。
Endosc Int Open. 2021 Aug;9(8):E1196-E1197. doi: 10.1055/a-1495-5077. Epub 2021 Jul 16.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2016 Jan;42(1):26-33. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(16)42003-9.
4
A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.内镜不良事件词汇表:美国胃肠内镜学会研讨会报告
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027.
5
Attitudes of doctors and nurses towards incident reporting: a qualitative analysis.医生和护士对事件报告的态度:一项定性分析。
Med J Aust. 2004 Jul 5;181(1):36-9. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb06158.x.