Identification and characterization of errors and incidents in a medical intensive care unit

Safety management in times of crisis: Lessons learned from a nationwide status-analysis on German intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The status of Safety Management is highly relevant to evaluate an organization's ability to deal with unexpected events or errors, especially in times of crisis. However, it remains unclear to what extent Safety Management was developed and sufficiently implemented within the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing insights of potential for improvement is expected to be directional for ongoing Safety Management efforts, in times of crisis and beyond.

Method

A nationwide survey study was conducted among healthcare professionals and auxiliary staff on German Intensive Care Units (ICUs) evaluating their experiences during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Error Management and Patient Safety Culture (PSC) measures served to operationalize Safety Management. Data were analyzed descriptively and by using quantitative content analysis (QCA).

Results

Results for n = 588 participants from 53 hospitals show that there is a gap between errors occurred, reported, documented, and addressed. QCA revealed that low quality of safety culture (27.8%) was the most mentioned reason for errors not being addressed. Overall, ratings of PSC ranged from 26.7 to 57.9% positive response with Staffing being the worst and Teamwork Within Units being the best rated dimension. While assessments showed a similar pattern, medical staff rated PSC on ICUs more positively in comparison to nursing staff.

Conclusion

The status-analysis of Safety Management in times of crisis revealed relevant potential for improvement. Human Factor plays a crucial role in the occurrence and the way errors are dealt with on ICUs, but systemic factors should not be underestimated. Further intensified efforts specifically in the fields of staffing and error reporting, documentation and communication are needed to improve Safety Management on ICUs. These findings might also be applicable across nations and sectors beyond the medical field.

The role of the critical care pharmacist during the COVID-19 pandemic

•

The COPIL allowed the restructuring of the ICU in record time to double its capacity.

•

The CCP, integrated in the COPIL and already a member of the ICU team for a few years, provided an essential link between the ICU and the pharmacy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

•

The CCP implemented actions to avoid health products shortages, to secure practices and played a key role in the critical analysis of emerging published data in COVID-19 potential treatments.

On January 4 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported the emergence of a cluster of pneumonia cases in Wuhan, China due to a new coronavirus, the SARS-CoV-2. A few weeks later, hospitals had to put in place a series of drastic measures to deal with the massive influx of suspected COVID-19 (COronaroVIrus Disease) patients while securing regular patient care, in particular in the intensive care units (ICU). Since March 12th, 77 of the 685 COVID-19 patients admitted to our hospital required hospitalization in the ICU. What are the roles and the added-value of the critical care pharmacist during this period? His missions have evolved although they have remained focused on providing health services for the patients. Indeed, integrated into a steering committee created to organize the crisis in the intensive care units, the role of the clinical pharmacist was focused on the organization and coordination between ICU and the pharmacy, the implementation of actions to secure practices, to train new professionals and the adaptation of therapeutic strategies. He participated to literature monitoring and increased his involvement in the clinical research team. He provided a link between the ICU and the pharmacy thanks to his knowledges of practices and needs.

We want to know: patient comfort speaking up about breakdowns in care and patient experience

OBJECTIVE

To assess patient comfort speaking up about problems during hospitalisation and to identify patients at increased risk of having a problem and not feeling comfortable speaking up.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Eight hospitals in Maryland and Washington, District of Columbia.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients hospitalised at any one of eight hospitals who completed the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey postdischarge.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Response to the question 'How often did you feel comfortable speaking up if you had any problems in your care?' grouped as: (1) no problems during hospitalisation, (2) always felt comfortable speaking up and (3) usually/sometimes/never felt comfortable speaking up.

RESULTS

Of 10 212 patients who provided valid responses, 4958 (48.6%) indicated they had experienced a problem during hospitalisation. Of these, 1514 (30.5%) did not always feel comfortable speaking up. Predictors of having a problem during hospitalisation included age, health status and education level. Patients who were older, reported worse overall and mental health, were admitted via the Emergency Department and did not speak English at home were less likely to always feel comfortable speaking up. Patients who were not always comfortable speaking up provided lower ratings of nurse communication (47.8 vs 80.4; p<0.01), physician communication (57.2 vs 82.6; p<0.01) and overall hospital ratings (7.1 vs 8.7; p<0.01). They were significantly less likely to definitely recommend the hospital (36.7% vs 71.7 %; p<0.01) than patients who were always comfortable speaking up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients frequently experience problems in care during hospitalisation and many do not feel comfortable speaking up. Creating conditions for patients to be comfortable speaking up may result in service recovery opportunities and improved patient experience. Such efforts should consider the impact of health literacy and mental health on patient engagement in patient-safety activities.

Safety and quality in critical patient care

The care quality has gradually been placed in the center of the health system, reaching the patient safety a greater role as one of the key dimensions of quality in recent years. The monitoring, measurement and improvement of safety and quality of care in the Intensive Care Unit represent a great challenge for the critical care community. Health interventions carry a risk of adverse events or events that can cause injury, disability and even death in patients. In Intensive Care Unit, the severity of the critical patient, communication barriers, a high number of activities per patient per day, the practice of diagnostic procedures and invasive treatments, and the quantity and complexity of the information received, among others, put at risk these units as areas for the occurrence of adverse events. This article presents some of the strategies and interventions proposed and tested internationally to optimize the care of critical patients and improve the safety culture in the Intensive Care Unit.

Oncologists' negative attitudes towards expressing emotion over patient death and burnout

PURPOSE

The aims of this study were to examine the relationship between negative attitudes towards expressing emotion following patient death and burnout in oncologists and to explore oncologists' preferences for institutional interventions to deal with patient death.

METHODS

The participants included a convenience sample of 177 oncologists from Israel and Canada. Oncologists completed a questionnaire package that included a sociodemographic survey, a burnout measure, a survey assessing negative attitudes towards expressing emotion, and a survey assessing desired interventions to cope with patient death. To examine the association between burnout and negative attitudes while controlling for the effect of sociodemographic variables, a hierarchical linear regression was computed.

RESULTS

Higher burnout scores were related to higher negative attitudes towards perceived expressed emotion (partial r = .25, p < .01) of those who viewed this affect as a weakness and as a sign of unprofessionalism. Approximately half of the oncologists found each of the five categories of institutional interventions (pedagogical strategies, emotional support, group/peer support, taking time off, and research and training) helpful in coping with patient death.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that high burnout scores are associated with negative attitudes towards expressing emotion and that there is a wide variation in oncologist preferences in coping with patient death. Institutions should promote interventions that are varied and that focus on the needs of oncologists in order to reduce burnout. Interventions that legitimize expression of emotion about patient death may be useful. Another way to reduce stigma would be to require oncologists to "opt out" rather than "opt in" to accessing a selection of social and/or individual interventions.

Improving patient safety through the involvement of patients: development and evaluation of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing patient safety incidents and protecting them against unintended harm

Background

Estimates suggest that, in NHS hospitals, incidents causing harm to patients occur in 10% of admissions, with costs to the NHS of > £2B. About one-third of harmful events are believed to be preventable. Strategies to reduce patient safety incidents (PSIs) have mostly focused on changing systems of care and professional behaviour, with the role that patients can play in enhancing the safety of care being relatively unexplored. However, although the role and effectiveness of patient involvement in safety initiatives is unclear, previous work has identified a general willingness among patients to contribute to initiatives to improve health-care safety.

Aim

Our aim in this programme was to design, develop and evaluate four innovative approaches to engage patients in preventing PSIs: assessing risk, reporting incidents, direct engagement in preventing harm and education and training.

Methods and results

We developed tools to report PSIs [patient incident reporting tool (PIRT)] and provide feedback on factors that might contribute to PSIs in the future [Patient Measure of Safety (PMOS)]. These were combined into a single instrument and evaluated in the Patient Reporting and Action for a Safe Environment (PRASE) intervention using a randomised design. Although take-up of the intervention by, and retention of, participating hospital wards was 100% and patient participation was high at 86%, compliance with the intervention, particularly the implementation of action plans, was poor. We found no significant effect of the intervention on outcomes at 6 or 12 months. The ThinkSAFE project involved the development and evaluation of an intervention to support patients to directly engage with health-care staff to enhance their safety through strategies such as checking their care and speaking up to staff if they had any concerns. The piloting of ThinkSAFE showed that the approach is feasible and acceptable to users and may have the potential to improve patient safety. We also developed a patient safety training programme for junior doctors based on patients who had experienced PSIs recounting their own stories. This approach was compared with traditional methods of patient safety teaching in a randomised controlled trial. The study showed that delivering patient safety training based on patient narratives is feasible and had an effect on emotional engagement and learning about communication. However, there was no effect on changing general attitudes to safety compared with the control.

Conclusion

This research programme has developed a number of novel interventions to engage patients in preventing PSIs and protecting them against unintended harm. In our evaluations of these interventions we have been unable to demonstrate any improvement in patient safety although this conclusion comes with a number of caveats, mainly about the difficulty of measuring patient safety outcomes. Reflecting this difficulty, one of our recommendations for future research is to develop reliable and valid measures to help efficiently evaluate safety improvement interventions. The programme found patients to be willing to codesign, coproduce and participate in initiatives to prevent PSIs and the approaches used were feasible and acceptable. These factors together with recent calls to strengthen the patient voice in health care could suggest that the tools and interventions from this programme would benefit from further development and evaluation.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN07689702.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.

The Use of Clinical Simulation Systems to Train Critical Care Physicians

Intensive care units are complex and dynamic clinical environments in which the delivery of appropriate and timely care to critically ill patients depends on the integrated and efficient actions of providers with specialized training. The use of realistic clinical simulator systems can help to facilitate and standardize the training of critical-care physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and pharmacists without having the training process jeopardize the well-being of patients. In this article, we review the current state of the art of patient simulator systems and their applications to critical-care medicine, and we offer some examples and recommendations on how to integrate simulator systems into critical-care training.

Understanding Decision Making in Critical Care

BACKGROUND

Human decision making involves the deliberate formulation of hypotheses and plans as well as the use of subconscious means of judging probability, likely outcome, and proper action.

RATIONALE

There is a growing recognition that intuitive strategies such as use of heuristics and pattern recognition described in other industries are applicable to high-acuity environments in medicine. Despite the applicability of theories of cognition to the intensive care unit, a discussion of decision-making strategies is currently absent in the critical care literature.

CONTENT

This article provides an overview of known cognitive strategies, as well as a synthesis of their use in critical care. By understanding the ways by which humans formulate diagnoses and make critical decisions, we may be able to minimize errors in our own judgments as well as build training activities around known strengths and limitations of cognition.

The incidence of adverse events in an Italian acute care hospital: findings of a two-stage method in a retrospective cohort study

Background

The promotion of safer healthcare interventions in hospitals is a relevant public health topic. This study is aimed to investigate predictors of Adverse Events (AEs) taking into consideration the Charlson Index in order to control for confounding biases related to comorbidity.

Methods

The study was a retrospective cohort study based on a two-stage assessment tool which was used to identify AEs. In stage 1, two physicians reviewed a random sample of patient records from 2008 discharges. In stage 2, reviewers independently assessed each screened record to confirm the presence of AEs. A univariable and multivariable analysis was conducted to identify prognostic factors of AEs; socio-demographic and some main organizational variables were taken into consideration. Charlson comorbidity Index was calculated using the algorithm developed by Quan et al.

Results

A total of 1501 records were reviewed; mean patients age was 60 (SD: 19) and 1415 (94.3%) patients were Italian. Forty-six (3.3%) AEs were registered; they most took place in medical wards (33, 71.7%), followed by surgical ones (9, 19.6%) and intensive care unit (ICU) (4, 8.7%). According to the logistic regression model and controlling for Charlson Index, the following variables were associated to AEs: type of admission (emergency vs elective: OR 3.47, 95% CI: 1.60-7.53), discharge ward (surgical and ICU vs medical wards: OR 2.29, 95% CI: 1.00-5.21 and OR 4.80, 95% CI: 1.47-15.66 respectively) and length of stay (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04). Among patients experiencing AEs a higher frequency of elderly (≥65 years) was shown (58.7% vs 49.3% among patients without AEs) but this difference was not statistically significant. Interestingly, a higher percentage of patients admitted through emergency department was found among patients experiencing AEs (69.7% vs 55.1% among patients without AEs).

Conclusions

The incidence of AEs was associated with length of stay, type of admission and unit of discharge, independently by comorbidity. On the basis of our results, it appears that organizational characteristics, taking into account the adjustment for comorbidity, are the main factors responsible for AEs while patient vulnerability played a minor role.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-358) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Outcome of adverse events and medical errors in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Adverse events and medical errors (AEs/MEs) are more likely to occur in the intensive care unit (ICU). Information about the incidence and outcomes of such events is conflicting. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to examine the effects of MEs/AEs on mortality and hospital and ICU lengths of stay among ICU patients. Potentially eligible studies were identified from 4 major databases. Of 902 studies screened, 12 met the inclusion criteria, 10 of which are included in the quantitative analysis. Patients with 1 or more MEs/AEs (vs no MEs/AEs) had a nonsignificant increase in mortality (odds ratio = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.98-2.14) but significantly longer hospital and ICU stays; the mean difference (95% CI) was 8.9 (3.3-14.7) days for hospital stay and 6.8 (0.2-13.4) days for ICU. The ICU environment is associated with a substantial incidence of MEs/AEs, and patients with MEs/AEs have worse outcomes than those with no MEs/AEs.

Human Factors in Critical Care Medical Environments

The purpose of this chapter on human factors in critical care medical environments is to provide a systematic review of the human factors and ergonomics contributions that led to significant improvements in patient safety over the last five decades. The review will focus on issues that contributed to patient injury and fatalities and how human factors and ergonomics can improve performance of providers in critical care. Given the complexity of critical care delivery, a review needs to cover a wide range of subjects. In this review, I take a sociotechnical systems perspective on critical care and discuss the people, their technical and nontechnical skills, the importance of teamwork, technology, and ergonomics in this complex environment. After a description of the importance of a safety climate, the chapter will conclude with a summary on how human factors and ergonomics can improve quality in critical care delivery.

Costs of adverse drug events in German hospitals--a microcosting study

OBJECTIVE

In Germany, only limited data are available to quantify the attributable resource utilization associated with adverse drug events (ADEs). The aim of this study was twofold: first, to calculate the direct treatment costs associated with ADEs leading to hospitalization and, second, to derive the excess costs and extra hospital days attributable to ADEs of inpatient treatments in selected German hospitals.

METHODS

This was a retrospective and medical record-based study performed from the hospitals' perspective based on administrative accounting data from three hospitals (49,462 patients) in Germany. Total treatment costs ("analysis 1") and excess costs (i.e., incremental resource utilization) between patients suffering from an ADE and those without ADEs were calculated by means of a propensity score-based matching algorithm ("analysis 2").

RESULTS

Mean treatment costs ("analysis 1") of ADEs leading to hospitalization (n = 564) were €1,978 ± 2,036 (range €191-18,147; median €1,446; €843-2,480 [Q1-Q3]). In analysis 2, the mean costs of inpatients suffering from an ADE (n = 1,891) as a concomitant disease or complication (€5,113 ± 10,059; range €179-246,288; median €2,701; €1,636-5,111 [Q1-Q3]) were significantly higher (€970; P < 0.0001) than those of non-ADE inpatients (€4,143 ± 6,968; range €154-148,479; median €2,387; €1,432-4,701 [Q1-Q3]). Mean inpatient length of stay of ADE patients (12.7 ± 17.2 days) and non-ADE patients (9.8 ± 11.6 days) differed by 2.9 days (P < 0.0001). A nationwide extrapolation resulted in annual total treatment costs of €1.058 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

This is one of the first administrative data-based analyses calculating the economic consequences of ADEs in Germany. Further efforts are necessary to improve pharmacotherapy and relieve health care payers of preventable treatment costs.

[Communication in intensive care medicine]

Communication plays a crucial role in the intensive care unit. Posttraumatic stress syndromes develop in a significant number of patients and their relatives after being in an intensive care unit. The syndromes may persist for several years. Regular open and empathic communication with patients and family members reduces the frequency and severity of the disease. Among the physicians and nurses in the intensive care unit, there is a high prevalence of burnout syndrome. The precipitating factors are mostly conflicts within the working staff, work overload and end-of-life situations. Working team communication reduces the rate of exhaustion syndromes. Rounds of discussions among the work groups are the basis for a healthy team structure. Inadequate communication, e.g., during emergencies or shift change, endangers the safety of patients and in the worst case, results in treatment mistakes. Measures for improved communication in the intensive care unit should always be implemented.

Development of an evidence-based framework of factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to develop a 'contributory factors framework' from a synthesis of empirical work which summarises factors contributing to patient safety incidents in hospital settings.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review of the literature was conducted.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (Medline, PsycInfo, ISI Web of knowledge, CINAHL and EMBASE), article reference lists, patient safety websites, registered study databases and author contacts.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies were included that reported data from primary research in secondary care aiming to identify the contributory factors to error or threats to patient safety.

RESULTS

1502 potential articles were identified. 95 papers (representing 83 studies) which met the inclusion criteria were included, and 1676 contributory factors extracted. Initial coding of contributory factors by two independent reviewers resulted in 20 domains (eg, team factors, supervision and leadership). Each contributory factor was then coded by two reviewers to one of these 20 domains. The majority of studies identified active failures (errors and violations) as factors contributing to patient safety incidents. Individual factors, communication, and equipment and supplies were the other most frequently reported factors within the existing evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has culminated in an empirically based framework of the factors contributing to patient safety incidents. This framework has the potential to be applied across hospital settings to improve the identification and prevention of factors that cause harm to patients.

[Introduction of a management system in intensive care medicine based on the safety of the seriously ill patient during the entire hospitalization process: extended intensive care medicine]

The clinical care of hospitalized seriously ill patients must be suitably proportionate independently of the functional unit to which they have been admitted. Most of these patients are admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), where uninterrupted management is provided, with important technological and care resources. However, hospitalization of the seriously ill patient must be understood as a continuum starting and ending beyond hospital stay. Anticipating critical worsening requiring admission to the ICU would be of benefit to the patient, avoiding greater clinical worsening, and also would be of benefit to the hospital, by allowing improved resource management. Intensivists are the professionals best suited for this purpose, since they are trained to recognize the seriousness of an always dynamic clinical situation. Addressing this task implies a change in the traditional way of working of the ICU, since a critical patient is not only a patient already admitted to the Unit but also any other patient admitted to hospital whose clinical situation is becoming destabilized. In this context, our ICU has established two strategic lines. One consists of the identification of patients at risk outside the Unit and is based on the recognition, diagnostic orientation and early treatment of the seriously ill patient, in collaboration with other clinical specialties and independently of the hospital area to which the patient has been admitted. The second line in turn comprises clinical care within the actual Unit, and is based on the promotion of safety and the vigilance of nosocomial infections.

Selected medical errors in the intensive care unit: results of the IATROREF study: parts I and II

RATIONALE

Although intensive care units (ICUs) were created for patients with life-threatening illnesses, the ICU environment generates a high risk of iatrogenic events. Identifying medical errors (MEs) that serve as indicators for iatrogenic risk is crucial for purposes of reporting and prevention.

OBJECTIVES

We describe the selection of indicator MEs, the incidence of such MEs, and their relationship with mortality.

METHODS

We selected indicator MEs using Delphi techniques. An observational prospective multicenter cohort study of these MEs was conducted from March 27 to April 3, 2006, in 70 ICUs; 16 (23%) centers were audited. Harm from MEs was collected using specific scales.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen types of MEs were selected as indicators; 1,192 MEs were reported for 1,369 patients, and 367 (26.8%) patients experienced at least 1 ME (2.1/1,000 patient-days). The most common MEs were insulin administration errors (185.9/1,000 d of insulin treatment). Of the 1,192 medical errors, 183 (15.4%) in 128 (9.3%) patients were adverse events that were followed by one or more clinical consequences (n = 163) or that required one or more procedures or treatments (n = 58). By multivariable analysis, having two or more adverse events was an independent risk factor for ICU mortality (odds ratio, 3.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-7.36; P = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of medical errors on mortality indicates an urgent need to develop prevention programs. We have planned a study to assess a program based on our results.

The impact of adverse events in the intensive care unit on hospital mortality and length of stay

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) are patient injuries caused by medical care. Previous studies have reported increased mortality rates and prolonged hospital length of stay in patients having an AE. However, these studies have not adequately accounted for potential biases which might influence these associations. We performed this study to measure the independent influence of intensive care unit (ICU) based AEs on in-hospital mortality and hospital length of stay.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study in an academic tertiary-care ICU. Patients were monitored daily for adverse clinical occurrences. Data about adverse clinical occurrences were reviewed by a multidisciplinary team who rated whether they were AEs and whether they were preventable. We determined the association of AEs in the ICU with time to death and time to hospital discharge using multivariable survival analysis models.

RESULTS

We evaluated 207 critically ill patients (81% required mechanical ventilation, median Glasgow Coma Scale = 8, median predicted mortality = 31%). Observed mortality rate and hospital length of stay were 25% (95% CI 19%-31%) and 15 days (IQR 8-34 days), respectively. ICU-based AEs and preventable AEs occurred in 40 patients (19%, 95% CI 15%-25%) and 21 patients (10%, 95% CI 7%-15%), respectively. ICU-based AEs and preventable AEs were not significantly associated with time to in-hospital death (HR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.98 and HR = 0.72 95% CI 0.25-2.04, respectively). ICU-based AEs and preventable AEs were independently associated with time to hospital discharge ((HR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.31-0.81 and HR = 0.46 95% CI 0.23-0.91, respectively)). ICU-based AEs were associated with an average increase in hospital length of stay of 31 days.

CONCLUSION

The impact of AEs on hospital length of stay was clinically relevant. Larger studies are needed to conclusively measure the association between preventable AEs and patient outcomes.

Impact of adverse events on outcomes in intensive care unit patients

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between predefined adverse events (AE) (including nosocomial infections) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, controlling for multiple adverse events in the same patient and confounding variables.

DESIGN

Prospective observational cohort study of the French OUTCOMEREA multicenter database.

SETTING

Twelve medical or surgical ICUs.

PATIENTS

Unselected patients hospitalized for > or = 48 hrs enrolled between 1997 and 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Of the 3,611 patients included, 1415 (39.2%) experienced one or more AEs and 821 (22.7%) had two or more AEs. Mean number of AEs per patient was 2.8 (range, 1-26). Six AEs were associated with death: primary or catheter-related bloodstream infection (BSI) (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-5.32), BSI from other sources (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 2.66-12.05), nonbacteremic pneumonia (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.17-2.44), deep and organ/space surgical site infection without BSI (OR, 3; 95% CI, 1.3-6.8), pneumothorax (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.5-6.3), and gastrointestinal bleeding (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.4-4.9). The results were not changed when the analysis was confined to patients with mechanical ventilation on day 1, intermediate severity of illness (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II between 35 and 55), no treatment-limitation decisions, or no cardiac arrest in the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

AEs were common and often occurred in combination in individual patients. Several AEs independently contributed to death. Creating a safe ICU environment is a challenging task that deserves careful attention from ICU physicians.

Critical incident reporting system in emergency medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review summarizes the knowledge of error and of critical incident reporting systems in general and especially in emergency medicine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Medicine is a high-risk area and emergency medicine in particular needs consequent use of critical incident reporting systems. We need a safety culture to learn from our mistakes and we need to discuss all mistakes regardless of hierarchical structures in medicine.

SUMMARY

The first step in avoiding fatalities in emergency medicine is to accept that errors do occur. The next question is how to prevent errors in medicine and not to search for personal mistakes. We need a culture of error and not a culture of blame. Critical incidents occur in all ranges of medical hierarchical structures. We have to accept the presence of mistakes and we need to recognize them every day to protect our patients.

Non-technical skills in the intensive care unit

In high-risk industries such as aviation, the skills not related directly to technical expertise, but crucial for maintaining safety (e.g. teamwork), have been categorized as non-technical skills. Recently, research in anaesthesia has identified and developed a taxonomy of the non-technical skills requisite for safety in the operating theatre. Although many of the principles related to performance and safety within anaesthesia are relevant to the intensive care unit (ICU), relatively little research has been done to identify the non-technical skills required for safe practice within the ICU. This review focused upon critical incident studies in the ICU, in order to examine whether the contributory factors identified as underlying the critical incidents, were associated with the skill categories (e.g. task management, teamwork, situation awareness and decision making) outlined in the Anaesthetists' Non-technical Skills (ANTS) taxonomy. We found that a large proportion of the contributory factors underlying critical incidents could be attributed to a non-technical skill category outlined in the ANTS taxonomy. This is informative both for future critical incident reporting, and also as an indication that the ANTS taxonomy may provide a good starting point for the development of a non-technical skills taxonomy for intensive care. However, the ICU presents a range of unique challenges to practitioners working within it. It is therefore necessary to conduct further non-technical skills research, using human factors techniques such as root-cause analyses, observation of behaviour, attitudinal surveys, studies of cognition, and structured interviews to develop a better understanding of the non-technical skills important for safety within the ICU. Examples of such research highlight the utility of these techniques.