PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 25, 2011Anaesthesia105 citations

Critical incident reports concerning anaesthetic equipment: analysis of the UK National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from 2006–2008*

View Full Paper
CCChristopher CassidyASAndrew F SmithJAJ. Arnot‐Smith

Key Result

Anaesthetic equipment safety incidents most commonly involved patient monitoring (39.8%) and ventilators (17.9%), with 89% of the 1,029 reported incidents causing no patient harm.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=1,029)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

P
Population
1,029 patient safety incidents relating to anaesthetic equipment reported to the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales between 2006 and 2008.
O
Outcome
Types and frequencies of anaesthetic equipment incidents and associated patient harmsafety

Analysis of national incident data highlights that while anaesthetic equipment failures are common, particularly with monitoring and ventilators, the vast majority cause no patient harm.

Abstract

Anaesthetic equipment plays a central role in anaesthetic practice but brings the potential for malfunction or misuse. We aimed to explore the national picture by reviewing patient safety incidents relating to anaesthetic equipment from the National Reporting and Learning System for England and Wales between 2006 and 2008. We searched the database using the system's own classification and by scrutinising the free text of relevant incidents. There were 1029 relevant incidents. Of these, 410 (39.8%) concerned patient monitoring, most commonly screen failure during anaesthesia, failure of one modality or failure to transfer data automatically from anaesthetic room to operating theatre. Problems relating to ventilators made up 185 (17.9%) of the reports. Sudden failures during anaesthesia accounted for 142 (13.8%) of these, with a further 10 cases (0.9%) where malfunction caused a sustained or increasing positive pressure in the patient's airway. Leaks made up 99 (9.6%) of incidents and 53 (5.2%) of incidents arose from the use of infusion pumps. Most (89%) of the incidents caused no patient harm; only 30 (2.9%) were judged to have led to moderate or severe harm. Although equipment was often faulty, user error or unfamiliarity also played a part. A large variety of causes led to a relatively small number of clinical scenarios, that anaesthetists should be ready, both individually and organisationally, to manage even when the cause is not apparent. We make recommendations for enhancing patient safety with respect to equipment. You can respond to this article at http://www.anaesthesiacorrespondence.com.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Cassidy et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Patient safety incidents relating to anaesthetic equipment (n=1,029). Anaesthetic equipment malfunction or misuse was evaluated on Types and consequences of anaesthetic equipment incidents. Anaesthetic equipment safety incidents most commonly involved patient monitoring (39.8%) and ventilators (17.9%), with 89% of the 1,029 reported incidents causing no patient harm.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2005f235281a23f90dcc6fhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06826.x
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper