Rates of Serious Surgical Errors in California and Plans to Prevent Recurrence

Never events in plastic surgery: An analysis of surgical burns and medical malpractice litigation

INTRODUCTION

Burns and fires in the operating room are a known risk and their prevention has contributed to many additional safety measures. Despite these safeguards, burn injuries contribute significantly to the medical malpractice landscape. The aim of the present study is to analyze malpractice litigation related to burn and fire injuries in plastic and reconstructive surgery, identify mechanisms of injury, and develop strategies for prevention.

METHODS

The Westlaw and LexisNexis databases were queried for jury verdicts and settlements in malpractice lawsuits related to burn and fire injuries that occurred during plastic surgery procedures. The Boolean terms included "burn & injury & plastic", "fire & injury & "plastic surg!"" in Westlaw, and "burn & injury & "plastic surg!"", "fire & injury & "plastic surg!"" in LexisNexis.

RESULTS

A total of 46 cases met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overheated surgical instruments and cautery devices were the most common mechanisms for litigation. Plastic surgeons were defendants in 40 (87%) cases. Of the included cases, 43% were ruled in favor of the defendant, while 33% were ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Mishandling of cautery devices 6 (13%), heated surgical instruments 6 (13%), and topical acids 2 (4%) were the most common types of errors encountered.

CONCLUSION

Never events causing burn injury in plastic and reconstructive surgery are ultimately caused by human error or neglect. The misuse of overheated surgical instruments and cauterizing devices should be the focus for improving patient safety and reducing the risk of medical malpractice. Forcing functions and additional safeguards should be considered to minimize the risk of costly litigation and unnecessary severe harm to patients.

A Review of Cognitive Support Systems in the Operating Room

BACKGROUND

In recent years, numerous innovative yet challenging surgeries, such as minimally invasive procedures, have introduced an overwhelming amount of new technologies, increasing the cognitive load for surgeons and potentially diluting their attention. Cognitive support technologies (CSTs) have been in development to reduce surgeons' cognitive load and minimize errors. Despite its huge demands, it still lacks a systematic review.

METHODS

Literature was searched up until May 21st, 2021. Pubmed, Web of Science, and IEEExplore. Studies that aimed at reducing the cognitive load of surgeons were included. Additionally, studies that contained an experimental trial with real patients and real surgeons were prioritized, although phantom and animal studies were also included. Major outcomes that were assessed included surgical error, anatomical localization accuracy, total procedural time, and patient outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were included. Overall, the implementation of CSTs had better surgical performance than the traditional methods. Most studies reported decreased error rate and increased efficiency. In terms of accuracy, most CSTs had over 90% accuracy in identifying anatomical markers with an error margin below 5 mm. Most studies reported a decrease in surgical time, although some were statistically insignificant.

DISCUSSION

CSTs have been shown to reduce the mental workload of surgeons. However, the limited ergonomic design of current CSTs has hindered their widespread use in the clinical setting. Overall, more clinical data on actual patients is needed to provide concrete evidence before the ubiquitous implementation of CSTs.

Surgical Team Structure: How Familiarity and Team Size Influence Communication Effectiveness in Military Surgical Teams

INTRODUCTION

Preventable patient harm has persisted in health care despite recent advances to reduce errors. There is increasing recognition that non-technical skills, including communication and relationships, greatly impact interprofessional team performance and health care quality. Team familiarity and size are critical structural components that potentially influence information flow, communication, and efficiency.

METHODS

In this exploratory, prospective, cross-sectional study, we investigated the key structural components of surgical teams and identified how surgical team structure shapes communication effectiveness. Using total population sampling, we recruited surgical clinicians who provide direct patient care at a 138-bed military medical center. We used statistical modeling to characterize the relationship between communication effectiveness and five predictors: team familiarity, team size, surgical complexity, and the presence of surgical residents and student anesthesia professionals.

RESULTS

We surveyed 137 surgical teams composed of 149 multidisciplinary clinicians for an 82% response rate. The mean communication effectiveness score was 4.61 (SD = 0.30), the average team size was 4.53 (SD = 0.69) persons, and the average surgical complexity was 10.85 relative value units (SD = 6.86). The surgical teams exhibited high variability in familiarity, with teams co-performing 26% (SD = 0.16) of each other's surgeries. We found for every unit increase in team familiarity, communication effectiveness increased by 0.36 (P ≤ .05), whereas adding one additional member to the surgical team decreased communication effectiveness by 0.1 (P ≤ .05). Surgical complexity and the influence of residents and students were not associated with communication effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

For military surgical teams, greater familiarity and smaller team sizes were associated with small improvements in communication effectiveness. Military leaders can likely enhance team communication by engaging in a thoughtful and concerted program to foster cohesion by building familiarity and optimizing team size to meet task and cognitive demands. We suggest leaders develop bundled approaches to improve communication by integrating team familiarity and team size optimization into current evidence-based initiatives to enhance performance.

Interprofessional staff perspectives on the adoption of or black box technology and simulations to improve patient safety: a multi-methods survey

INTRODUCTION

Medical errors still plague healthcare. Operating Room Black Box (ORBB) and ORBB-simulation (ORBBSIM) are innovative emerging technologies which continuously capture as well as categorize intraoperative data, team information, and audio-visual files, in effort to improve objective quality measures. ORBB and ORBBSIM have an opportunity to improve patient safety, yet a paucity of implementation literature exists. Overcoming implementation barriers is critical. This study sought to obtain rich insights while identifying facilitators and barriers to adoption of ORBB and ORBBSIM in alignment with Donabedian's model of health services and healthcare quality. Enrichment themes included translational performance improvement and real-world examples to develop sessions.

METHODS

Interprofessional OR staff were invited to complete two surveys assessing staff's perceptions using TeamSTEPPS's validated Teamwork Perceptions Questionnaire (T-TPQ) and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for quantitative variables, and inductive phenomenological content analysis was used for qualitative.

RESULTS

Survey 1 captured 71 responses from 334 invited (RR 21%) while survey 2 captured 47 responses from 157 (RR 29.9%). The T-TPQ score was 65.2, with Communication (70.4) the highest construct and Leadership (58.0) the lowest. Quality Improvement (QI), Patient Safety, and Objective Case Review were the most common perceived ORBB benefits. Trends suggested a reciprocal benefit of dual ORBB and ORBBSIM adoption. Trends also suggested that dual implementation can promote Psychological Safety, culture, trust, and technology comfort. The need for an implementation plan built on change management principles and a constructive culture were key findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings supported ORBB implementation themes from previous literature and deepened our understanding through the exploration of team culture. This blueprint provides a model to help organizations adopt ORBB and ORBBSIM. Outcomes can establish an empirical paradigm for future studies.

Are temporal trends in retained foreign object rates after surgery in Switzerland impacted by increasing coding intensity? A retrospective analysis of hospital routine data from 2000 to 2019

OBJECTIVES

Retained foreign objects (RFOs) after surgery can cause harm to patients and negatively impact clinician and hospital reputation. RFO incidence based on administrative data is used as a metric of patient safety. However, it is unknown how differences in coding intensity across hospitals and years impact the number of reported RFO cases. The objective of this study is to investigate the temporal trend of RFO incidence at a national level and the impact of changes in coding practices across hospitals and years.

DESIGN

Retrospective study using administrative hospital data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

21 805 005 hospitalisations at 354 Swiss acute-care hospital sites PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: RFO incidence over time, the distribution of RFOs across hospitals and the impact of differences in coding intensity across the hospitals and years.

RESULTS

The annual RFO rate more than doubled between 2000 and 2019 (from 4.6 to 11.8 with a peak of 17.0 in 2014) and coincided with increasing coding intensity (mean number of diagnoses: 3.4, SD 2.0 in 2000; 7.40, SD 5.2 in 2019). After adjusting for patient characteristics, two regression models confirmed that coding intensity was a significant predictor of both whether RFO cases were reported at the hospital level (OR: 12.94; 95% CI: 7.38 to 22.68) and the number of reported cases throughout the period at the national level (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR): 5.95; 95% CI: 1.11 to 31.82).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results raise concerns about the use of RFO incidence for comparing hospitals, countries and years. Utilising coding indices could be employed to mitigate the effects of coding intensity on RFO rates.

Root causes and preventability of unintentionally retained foreign objects after surgery: a national expert survey from Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Retained foreign objects (RFO) after surgery are rare, serious patient safety events. In international comparisons based on routine data, Switzerland had remarkably high RFO rates. The objectives of this study were to 1) explore national key stakeholders' views on RFO as a safety problem, its preventability and need for action in Switzerland; and 2) to assess their interpretation of Switzerland's RFO incidence compared to other countries.

METHODS

A semi-structured expert survey was conducted among national key representatives, including clinician experts, patient advocates, health administration representatives and other relevant stakeholders (n = 21). Data were coded and analyzed to generate themes related to the study questions following a deductive approach.

RESULTS

Experts in this study unequivocally emphasized the tragedy for individual patients affected by RFOs. Productivity pressure and the strong economization of operating rooms were perceived as detrimental to safety culture, which was seen as essential for RFO prevention, specifically by those working in the OR. RFOs were seen as "maximally minimizable" but not completely preventable. There was strong agreement that within country differences in RFO risk between Swiss hospitals existed. On the systems level and compared to other safety issues, RFO were having less urgency for most experts. The international comparison of RFO incidences raised serious skepticism across all groups of experts. The validity of the data was questioned and the dominant interpretation of Switzerland's high RFO incidence compared to other countries was a "reporting artifact" based on high coding quality in Swiss hospitals. While most experts thought that the published RFO incidence warrants in-depth analysis of the data, there was little agreement about who's role it was to initiate any further activities.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation offers valuable insights into the perspectives of significant stakeholders concerning RFOs, their root causes, and preventability. The findings demonstrate how international comparative safety data are perceived, interpreted, and utilized by national experts to derive conclusive insights.

Identifying a list of healthcare 'never events' to effect system change: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Never events (NEs) are patient safety incidents that are preventable and so serious they should never happen. To reduce NEs, several frameworks have been introduced over the past two decades; however, NEs and their harms continue to occur. These frameworks have varying events, terminology and preventability, which hinders collaboration. This systematic review aims to identify the most serious and preventable events for targeted improvement efforts by answering the following questions: Which patient safety events are most frequently classified as never events? Which ones are most commonly described as entirely preventable?

METHODS

For this narrative synthesis systematic review we searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central and CINAHL for articles published from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021. We included papers of any study design or article type (excluding press releases/announcements) that listed NEs or an existing NE framework.

RESULTS

Our analyses included 367 reports identifying 125 unique NEs. Those most frequently reported were surgery on the wrong body part, wrong surgical procedure, unintentionally retained foreign objects and surgery on the wrong patient. Researchers classified 19.4% of NEs as 'wholly preventable'. Those most included in this category were surgery on the wrong body part or patient, wrong surgical procedure, improper administration of a potassium-containing solution and wrong-route administration of medication (excluding chemotherapy).

CONCLUSIONS

To improve collaboration and facilitate learning from errors, we need a single list that focuses on the most preventable and serious NEs. Our review shows that surgery on the wrong body part or patient, or the wrong surgical procedure best meet these criteria.

Normalization of Deviance Is Contrary to the Principles of High Reliability

Normalization of deviance is a phenomenon in which individuals and teams depart from an acceptable performance standard until the adopted way of practice becomes the new norm. This phenomenon is concerning in high-risk areas of health care because it erodes a safety culture. Additionally, it is inimical to the principles of high reliability-specifically, to the first of the five principles: preoccupation with failure. Although all high-reliability principles hold relevance to safety, preoccupation with failure describes a consistent alertness to risk and is critical for preventing adverse events, particularly in high-risk environments such as the OR. This article describes how normalization of deviance and preoccupation with failure cannot coexist and presents ways to mitigate normalization of deviance and bolster high reliability, ultimately making ORs safer for surgical patients.