Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreClubsResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeClubsExplore
February 1, 2000Anesthesia & Analgesia

Factors Influencing the Reporting of Adverse Perioperative Outcomes to a Quality Management Program

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Is physician self-reporting a more reliable method of identifying adverse perioperative outcomes compared to medical chart review or incident reporting?

Population

37,924 anesthetics between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1994, resulting in 734 reported adverse…

Comparison

Physician self-reporting of adverse… vs Medical chart review and incident reporting

Design

Cohort

Authors

RKRobert I. KatzUniversity of FloridaRLRobert S. LagasseYale University

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Anesthesiologist self-reporting captured most adverse outcomes; leaves open whether it improves capture over other methods in modern quality programs.

Key Points

  • This research aims to identify factors influencing the reporting of adverse perioperative outcomes to improve data capture in quality management programs.
  • Comparative analysis of reporting sources including anesthesiologists, chart reviewers, and incident reports from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1994.
  • Survey of various personnel on factors affecting their reporting of adverse outcomes.
  • Statistical analysis of reporting rates and trends based on preoperative health status and severity of outcomes.
  • Out of 37,924 anesthetics, 734 (1.9%) adverse outcomes were reported, with anesthesiologists reporting 71% of cases.
  • Human error cases led to a higher self-reporting rate (92%, P < 0.05) for disabling patient injuries.
  • Chart reviewer reporting varied with patient condition and outcome severity, while incident reports focused more on human error (23.3%, P < 0.05).

Structured PICO

Is physician self-reporting a more reliable method of identifying adverse perioperative outcomes compared to medical chart review or incident reporting?

P
Population
37,924 anesthetics between January 1, 1992, and December 31, 1994, resulting in 734 reported adverse outcomes, plus a survey of 89 hospital personnel (20 attending anesthesiologists, 15 resident anesthesiologists, 29 operating room nurses, 19 postanesthesia care unit nurses, and 6 hospital chart reviewers).
I
Intervention
Physician self-reporting of adverse perioperative outcomes
C
Comparator
Medical chart review and incident reporting
O
Outcome
Identification and reporting rates of adverse perioperative outcomes

Physician self-reporting is a more reliable method of identifying adverse perioperative outcomes than either medical chart review or incident reporting.

Cite This Study

Katz et al. (2000) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a6fee45ac440176ef289576https://doi.org/10.1097/00000539-200002000-00020
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Accidents, near accidents and complications during anaesthesia A retrospective analysis of a 10‐year period in a teaching hospital1990 · 142 citations
  2. 2Costs of replacement of anaesthetic equipment. Projected expenditure for clinical anaesthetic equipment in a teaching health district1988 · 6 citations
  3. 3Is Voluntary Reporting of Critical Events Effective for Quality Assurance?1996 · 46 citations
  4. 4Defining Quality of Perioperative Care by Statistical Process Control of Adverse Outcomes1995 · 92 citations
  5. 5Critical incident reporting in an anaesthetic department quality assurance programme1993 · 108 citations