Groves J, Edwards N, Carr B
Department of Anaesthetics, Northern General Hospital, Sheffield.
Anaesthesia. 1994 Feb;49(2):122-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1994.tb03367.x.
We asked 20 anaesthetists and seven operating department assistants to check three anaesthetic machines 'doctored' to contain errors of varying seriousness, and recorded their performances. Two weeks later we asked the same group to repeat the test. On the second occasion they followed a visual aid and filled in a questionnaire about the test. Participants showed a significant improvement in the rate of fault detection when using the aid (p < 0.05). The visual aid was most useful at increasing the detection rate of machine leaks. Of the participants, 60% considered that the visual aid was helpful and 74% thought that such an aid should be available in our theatre complex. Sixty-six percent of those questioned felt that a formal check list would be of use.
我们让20名麻醉师和7名手术室助理检查三台经过“处理”的麻醉机,这些麻醉机存在不同严重程度的错误,并记录他们的表现。两周后,我们让同一组人员重复该测试。第二次测试时,他们使用了视觉辅助工具,并填写了一份关于测试的问卷。使用该辅助工具时,参与者在故障检测率方面有显著提高(p < 0.05)。视觉辅助工具在提高机器泄漏检测率方面最有用。在参与者中,60%认为视觉辅助工具很有帮助,74%认为在我们的手术室区域应该配备这样的辅助工具。66%的受访者认为正式的检查表会有用。