Department of Anaesthesiology, Nordsjællands Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hillerød, Denmark.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Management, Sinai Health System, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Br J Anaesth. 2024 Aug;133(2):371-379. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.04.052. Epub 2024 Jun 12.
Many serious adverse events in anaesthesia are retrospectively rated as preventable. Anonymous reporting of near misses to a critical incident reporting system (CIRS) can identify structural weaknesses and improve quality, but incidents are often underreported.
This prospective qualitative study aimed to identify conceptions of a CIRS and reasons for underreporting at a single Swiss centre. Anaesthesia cases were screened to identify critical airway-related incidents that qualified to be reported to the CIRS. Anaesthesia providers involved in these incidents were individually interviewed. Factors that prevented or encouraged reporting of critical incidents to the CIRS were evaluated. Interview data were analysed using the Framework method.
Of 3668 screened airway management procedures, 101 cases (2.8%) involved a critical incident. Saturation was reached after interviewing 21 anaesthesia providers, who had been involved in 42/101 critical incidents (41.6%). Only one incident (1.0%) had been reported to the CIRS, demonstrating significant underreporting. Interviews revealed highly variable views on the aims of the CIRS with an overall high threshold for reporting a critical incident. Factors hindering reporting of cases included concerns regarding identifiability of the reported incident and involved healthcare providers.
Methods to foster anonymity of reporting, such as by national rather than departmental critical incident reporting system databases, and a change in culture is required to enhance reporting of critical incidents. Institutions managing a critical incident reporting system need to ensure timely feedback to the team regarding lessons learned, consequences, and changes to standards of care owing to reported critical incidents. Consistent reporting and assessment of critical incidents is required to allow the full potential of a critical incident reporting system.
许多麻醉中的严重不良事件事后被评定为可预防的。向关键事件报告系统(CIRS)匿名报告接近差错可识别结构上的弱点并提高质量,但事件往往报告不足。
本前瞻性定性研究旨在瑞士单一中心确定对 CIRS 的概念和漏报的原因。筛选麻醉病例以确定有资格向 CIRS 报告的关键气道相关事件。对涉及这些事件的麻醉提供者进行个别访谈。评估了阻止或鼓励向 CIRS 报告关键事件的因素。使用框架方法分析访谈数据。
在 3668 例筛选的气道管理程序中,101 例(2.8%)涉及危急事件。对 21 名参与 42/101 例危急事件(41.6%)的麻醉提供者进行访谈后达到了饱和。仅向 CIRS 报告了一起事件(1.0%),表明漏报率很高。访谈显示,对 CIRS 的目的存在高度可变的看法,对报告危急事件的总体门槛很高。阻碍病例报告的因素包括对所报告事件的可识别性和涉及的医疗保健提供者的担忧。
需要采用促进报告匿名性的方法,例如国家而不是部门的关键事件报告系统数据库,以及改变文化,以加强对危急事件的报告。管理关键事件报告系统的机构需要确保及时向团队反馈所学到的教训、后果以及因报告的危急事件而对护理标准的更改。需要一致报告和评估危急事件,以充分发挥关键事件报告系统的潜力。