Key result
Audit and incident reporting in pediatric anesthesia reveal recurring risks unaddressed by current tools.
Why the study?
Various systems exist to assess errors and avoidable incidents in pediatric anesthesia, but their relative impact and areas needing more focus are unclear.
This review highlights the need for improved implementation strategies and addresses recurring risks in pediatric anesthesia incident reporting.
Recurring risks persist despite current pediatric anesthesia tools; leaves open whether enhanced implementation reduces incidents.
This review will attempt to put the various systems that allow clinicians to assess errors, omissions, or avoidable incidents into context and where possible, look for areas that deserve more or less attention and resource specifically for those of us who practice pediatric anesthesia. Different approaches will be contrasted with respect to their outputs in terms of positive impact on the practice of anesthesia. These approaches include audits by governmental organizations, national representative bodies, specialist societies, commissioned boards of inquiry, medicolegal sources, and police force investigations. Implementation strategies are considered alongside the reports as the reports cannot be considered end points themselves. Specific areas where pediatric anesthetics has failed to address recurring risk through any currently available tools will be highlighted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graham Bell (2011) conducted a review in Pediatric anesthesia errors and incidents. Audit and incident reporting systems was evaluated. Audit and incident reporting systems in pediatric anesthesia highlight recurring risks that currently available tools have failed to address, emphasizing the need for better implementation strategies.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: