Key result
A multisite anesthesia voluntary adverse event reporting process demonstrated high validity, with a per-item aggregated error rate of 0.3% and a per-patient error rate of 6.3%.
Observational (n=600)
Yes
A multisite voluntary adverse event reporting process for anesthesia outcomes demonstrated low error rates, suggesting it is a valid method that may help reduce errors.
Supports feasibility of valid voluntary reporting for anesthesia safety monitoring; leaves open effects on reducing events in routine care.
The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of a multisite anesthesia voluntary adverse event reporting process. A data validation methodology was used through medical chart review on live records at 3 facilities (N = 600). The per-item aggregated error rate among all 42 data items was 0.3%: 0.1% for quality indicators, 1.3% for demographic/status variables, and 1.7% for administrative items. The per-patient error rate among all 42 data items was 6.3%: 3.0% for quality indicators, 1.7% for demographic/status variables, and 3.0% for administrative items. Trends such as better accuracy for more serious events continue, but observed error rates were lower than those found in previous surveys-an indication that, while further study is needed, nonpunitive voluntary reporting may reduce errors in anesthesia care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walker et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Anesthesia adverse events (n=600). Voluntary adverse event reporting process vs. Medical chart review was evaluated on Per-item aggregated error rate among all 42 data items. A multisite anesthesia voluntary adverse event reporting process demonstrated high validity, with a per-item aggregated error rate of 0.3% and a per-patient error rate of 6.3%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: