The frequency and nature of drug administration error during anaesthesia

Established and emerging roles for pharmacy in operating theatres: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacy services at surgical pre-assessment clinics and on inpatient wards are well-documented, but services to theatre appear comparatively under-developed. High-risk and high-cost medicines are used routinely in theatre; pharmacists are well-qualified to optimise their use and improve patient care.

AIM

To determine the range, extent and nature of pharmacy services to theatre internationally, and to describe any reported outcomes of these services.

METHOD

This scoping review was conducted and reported as per PRISMA-ScR and Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A search was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Bielefeld Academic Search Engine, Canada's Drug and Health Technology Agency, Google and Google Scholar in April 2023. One reviewer screened titles and abstracts. Two reviewers screened full texts. Data extraction was completed by one reviewer. Two reviewers used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to perform quality appraisal. For work completed by one reviewer, a 10% sample was randomly selected for screening by a second reviewer.

RESULTS

Ninety-two publications were included from 3924. Fifty-seven were primary research articles. Other publication types included conference abstracts, journal columns, letters to the editor, practice standards/guidelines, opinion papers, narrative reviews and newsletter articles. Medication management and clinical services across five continents were described. Most reported outcomes related to cost savings. Nine of the 57 articles met the criteria for MMAT appraisal: of these, adherence to quality criteria ranged from 40 to 100%.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for theatre pharmacy services is extensive and varied. Empirical research of high methodological quality is required to assess the outcomes of these services.

A Systematic Review of Antibiotic Administration Incidents Involving Neuraxial Routes: Clinical Analysis, Contributing Factors and Prevention Approaches

INTRODUCTION

This review aimed to investigate the inadvertent administration of antibiotics via epidural and intrathecal routes. The secondary objective was to identify the contributing human and systemic factors.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar databases were searched for the last five decades (1973-2023). The author recorded the antibiotics involved, the route of administration, clinical details and consequences in a standardised format. The author utilized the Human Factors Analysis Classification System (HFACS) framework to identify contributing factors.

RESULTS

Twenty publications reported neuraxial administration of antibiotics (adults, 19, paediatric, three patients). Fifteen (of 22) incidents happened in the post-surgical or post-chronic pain procedure period. Most errors (14 of 22) occurred via the epidural route. Cefazolin (six) and gentamicin (five) were the most common among 13 antibiotics involved. Intrathecal cephalosporin incidents (n = 6) were associated with devastating consequences (death, one, permanent residual neurological deficits, three). In the unsafe act category of the HFACS, the perceptual error contributing to occurrences of neuraxial antibiotics administration errors was due to IV-neuraxial device (e.g. intrathecal drain or catheter, epidural catheter) confusion (eight patients) or syringe/infusion bag swap (nine patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Intrathecal cephalosporins and gentamicin administration are associated with devastating consequences. Prevention of neuraxial antibiotic administration requires improvements in clinical deficiencies and the implementation of supporting technological tools to prepare and administer antibiotics correctly, thereby ensuring patient safety.

Detecting clinical medication errors with AI enabled wearable cameras

Drug-related errors are a leading cause of preventable patient harm in the clinical setting. We present the first wearable camera system to automatically detect potential errors, prior to medication delivery. We demonstrate that using deep learning algorithms, our system can detect and classify drug labels on syringes and vials in drug preparation events recorded in real-world operating rooms. We created a first-of-its-kind large-scale video dataset from head-mounted cameras comprising 4K footage across 13 anesthesiology providers, 2 hospitals and 17 operating rooms over 55 days. The system was evaluated on 418 drug draw events in routine patient care and a controlled environment and achieved 99.6% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity at detecting vial swap errors. These results suggest that our wearable camera system has the potential to provide a secondary check when a medication is selected for a patient, and a chance to intervene before a potential medical error.

Disclosure of Adverse Events and Medical Errors: A Framework for Anesthesiologists

Ethical disclosure of adverse events (AE) presents opportunities and challenges for physicians and has unique ramifications for anesthesiologists. AE disclosure is supported by patients, regulatory organizations, and physicians. Disclosure is part of a physician's ethical duty toward patients, supports fully informed patient decision making, and is a critical component of root cause analysis. Barriers to AE disclosure include disruption of the doctor-patient relationship, fear of litigation, and inadequate training. Apology laws intended to support disclosure and mitigate concern for adverse legal consequences have not fulfilled that initial promise. Training and institutional communication programs support physicians in providing competent, ethical AE disclosure.

Drug administration errors among anaesthesia providers in South Africa: a cross-sectional descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Drug administration errors (DAEs) in anaesthesia are common, the aetiology multifactorial and though mostly inconsequential, some lead to substantial harm. The extend of DAEs remain poorly quantified and effective implementation of prevention strategies sparse.

METHOD

A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted using a peer-reviewed survey questionnaire, circulated to 2217 anaesthetists via a national communication platform. The aim was to determine the self-reported frequency, nature, contributing factors and reporting patterns of DAEs among anaesthesia providers in South Africa.

RESULTS

Our cohort had a response rate was 18.9%, with 420 individuals populating the questionnaire. 92.5% of surveyed participants have made a DAE and 89.2% a near-miss. Incorrect route of administration, potentially resulting in serious harm, accounted for 8.2% (n = 23/N = 279) of these errors. DAEs mostly reported in cases involving adult patients (80.5%, n = 243/N = 302), receiving a general anaesthetic (71.8%, n = 216/N = 301), where the drug-administrator prepared the drugs themselves (78.7%, n = 218/N = 277), during normal daytime hours (69.9%, n = 202/N = 289) with good lightning conditions (93.0%, n = 265/N = 285). 26% (n = 80/N = 305) of DAEs involved ampoule misidentification, whilst syringe identification error reported in 51.6% (n = 150/N = 291) of cases. DAEs are often not reported (40.3%, n = 114/N = 283), with knowledge of correct reporting procedures lacking. 70.5% (n = 198/N = 281) of DAEs were never discussed with the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

DAEs in anaesthesia remain prevalent. Known error traps continue to drive these incidents. Implementation of system based preventative strategies are paramount to guard against human error. Efforts should be made to encourage scrupulous reporting and training of anaesthesia providers, with the aim of rendering them proficient and resilient to handle these events.

0.75% ropivacaine may be a suitable drug in pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period

BACKGROUND

3% chloroprocaine (CP) has been reported as the common local anesthetic used in pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period. However, 0.75% ropivacaine is considered a promising and effective alternative. Therefore, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of 0.75% ropivacaine with 3% chloroprocaine for extended epidural anesthesia in pregnant women.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled, single-center study from November 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023. We selected forty-five pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period and randomized them to receive either 0.75% ropivacaine or 3% chloroprocaine in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the time to loss of cold sensation at the T4 level.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the two groups in the time to achieve loss of cold sensation (303, 95%CI 255 to 402 S vs. 372, 95%CI 297 to 630 S, p = 0.024). There was no significant difference the degree of motor block (p = 0.185) at the Th4 level. Fewer pregnant women required additional local anesthetics in the ropivacaine group compared to the chloroprocaine group (4.5% VS. 34.8%, p = 0.011). The ropivacaine group had lower intraoperative VAS scores (p = 0.023) and higher patient satisfaction scores (p = 0.040) than the chloroprocaine group. The incidence of intraoperative complications was similar between the two groups, and no serious complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that 0.75% ropivacaine was associated with less intraoperative pain treatment, higher patient satisfaction and reduced the onset time compared to 3% chloroprocaine in pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period. Therefore, 0.75% ropivacaine may be a suitable drug in pregnant women undergoing urgent cesarean delivery during labor analgesia period.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

The registration number: ChiCTR2200065201; http://www.chictr.org.cn , Principal investigator: MEN, Date of registration: 31/10/2022.

Inadvertent administration of intravenous anaesthesia induction agents via the intracerebroventricular, neuraxial or peripheral nerve route - A narrative review

Intravenous (IV) medication administration error remains a major concern during the perioperative period. This review examines inadvertent IV anaesthesia induction agent administration via high-risk routes. Using Medline and Google Scholar, the author searched published reports of inadvertent administration via neuraxial (intrathecal, epidural), peripheral nerve or plexus or intracerebroventricular (ICV) route. The author applied the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) framework to identify systemic and human factors. Among 14 patients involved, thiopentone was administered via the epidural route in six patients. Four errors involved the routes of ICV (propofol and etomidate one each) or lumbar intrathecal (propofol infusion and etomidate bolus). Intrathecal thiopentone was associated with cauda equina syndrome in one patient. HFACS identified suboptimal handling of external ventricular and lumbar drains and deficiencies in the transition of care. Organisational policy to improve the handling of neuraxial devices, use of technological tools and improvements in identified deficiencies in preconditions before drug preparation and administration may minimise future risks of inadvertent IV induction agent administration.

Effects of colour-coded compartmentalised syringe trays on anaesthetic drug error detection under cognitive load

BACKGROUND

Anaesthetic drug administration is complex, and typical clinical environments can entail significant cognitive load. Colour-coded anaesthetic drug trays have shown promising results for error identification and reducing cognitive load.

METHODS

We used experimental psychology methods to test the potential benefits of colour-coded compartmentalised trays compared with conventional trays in a simulated visual search task. Effects of cognitive load were also explored through an accompanying working memory-based task. We hypothesised that colour-coded compartmentalised trays would improve drug-detection error, reduce search time, and reduce cognitive load. This comprised a cognitive load memory task presented alongside a visual search task to detect drug errors.

RESULTS

All 53 participants completed 36 trials, which were counterbalanced across the two tray types and 18 different vignettes. There were 16 error-present and 20 error-absent trials, with 18 trials presented for each preloaded tray type. Syringe errors were detected more often in the colour-coded trays than in the conventional trays (91% vs 83%, respectively; P=0.006). In signal detection analysis, colour-coded trays resulted in more sensitivity to the error signal (2.28 vs 1.50, respectively; P<0.001). Confidence in response accuracy correlated more strongly with task performance for the colour-coded tray condition, indicating improved metacognitive sensitivity to task performance (r=0.696 vs r=0.447).

CONCLUSIONS

Colour coding and compartmentalisation enhanced visual search efficacy of drug trays. This is further evidence that introducing standardised colour-coded trays into operating theatres and procedural suites would add an additional layer of safety for anaesthetic procedures.

Medication errors in veterinary anesthesia: a literature review

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of medication errors (MEs) in veterinary medicine, with a focus on the perianesthetic period; to compare MEs in veterinary medicine with human anesthesia practice, and to describe factors contributing to the risk of MEs and strategies for error reduction.

DATABASES USED

PubMed and CAB abstracts; search terms: [("patient safety" or "medication error∗") AND veterin∗].

CONCLUSIONS

Human anesthesia is recognized as having a relatively high risk of MEs. In veterinary medicine, MEs were among the most commonly reported medical error. Predisposing factors for MEs in human and veterinary anesthesia include general (e.g. distraction, fatigue, workload, supervision) and specific factors (e.g. requirement for dose calculations when dosing for body mass, using several medications within a short time period and preparing syringes ahead of time). Data on MEs are most commonly collected in self-reporting systems, which very likely underestimate the true incidence, a problem acknowledged in human medicine. Case reports have described a variety of MEs in the perianesthetic period, including prescription, preparation and administration errors. Dogs and cats were the most frequently reported species, with MEs in cats more commonly associated with harmful outcomes compared with dogs. In addition to education and raising awareness, other strategies described for reducing the risk of MEs include behavioral, communication, identification, organizational, engineering and cognitive aids.

Look-alike medications in the perioperative setting: scoping review of medication incidents and risk reduction interventions

BACKGROUND

Look-alike medications, where ampoules or vials of intravenous medications look similar, may increase the risk of medication errors in the perioperative setting.

AIM

This scoping review aimed to identify and explore the issues related to look-alike medication incidents in the perioperative setting and the reported risk reduction interventions.

METHOD

Eight databases were searched including: CINAHL Complete, Embase, OVID Emcare, Pubmed, Scopus, Informit, Cochrane and Prospero and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Key search terms included anaesthesia, adverse drug event, drug error or medication error, look alike sound alike, operating theatres and pharmacy. Title and abstracts were screened independently and findings were extracted using validated tools in collaboration and consensus with co-authors.

RESULTS

A total of 2567 records were identified to 4th July 2022; however only 18 publications met the inclusion criteria. Publication types consisted of case reports, letters to the editor, multimodal quality improvement activities or survey/audits, a controlled simulation study and one randomised clinical trial. Risk reduction intervention themes identified included regulation, procurement, standardisation of storage, labelling, environmental factors, teamwork factors and the safe administration.

CONCLUSION

This review highlighted challenges with look-alike medications in the perioperative setting and identified interventions for risk reduction. Key interventions did not involve technology-based solutions and further research is required to assess their effectiveness in preventing patient harm.

Handling injectable medications in anaesthesia: Guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists

Peri-operative medication safety is complex. Avoidance of medication errors is both system- and practitioner-based, and many departments within the hospital contribute to safe and effective systems. For the individual anaesthetist, drawing up, labelling and then the correct administration of medications are key components in a patient's peri-operative journey. These guidelines aim to provide pragmatic safety steps for the practitioner and other individuals within the operative environment, as well as short- to long-term goals for development of a collaborative approach to reducing errors. The aim is that they will be used as a basis for instilling good practice.

Incidence and root causes of medication errors by anesthetists: a multicenter web-based survey from 8 teaching hospitals in Ethiopia

BAKGROUND

The operating room is a demanding and time-constrained setting, in comparison to primary care settings, where perioperative medication administration is more complicated and there is a high risk that the patient will experience a medication error. Without consulting the pharmacist or seeking assistance from other staff members, anesthesia clinicians prepare, deliver, and monitor strong anesthetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to determine the Incidence and root causes of medication errors by anesthetists in Amhara region, Ethiopia.

METHODS

A multi-center cross sectional web-based survey study was conducted from October 1 to November 30, 2022, across eight referral and teaching hospitals of Amhara region. A self-administered semi structured questionnaire was distributed using survey planet. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20. Descriptive statistics were computed and binary logistic regression was used for data analysis. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The study included 108 anesthetists in total, yielding a response rate of 42.35%. Out of 104 anesthetists, Majority of participants (82.7%) were male. During their clinical practice, more than half (64.4%) of participants experienced atleast one drug administration error. 39 (37.50%) of the respondents revealed that they experienced more medication errors while on night shifts. Anesthetists who did not always double-check their anesthetic drugs before administration had a 3.51 higher risk of developing MAEs compared to those who always double-check anesthetic drugs before administration (AOR = 3.51; 95% CI: 1.34, 9.19). Additionally, participants who administer medications that have been prepared by someone else are about five times more likely to experience MAEs than participants who prepare their own anesthetic medications prior to administration (AOR = 4.95; 95% CI: 1.54, 15.95).

CONCLUSION

The study found a considerable rate of errors in the administration of anaesthetic drugs. The failure to always double-check medications before administration and the use of drugs prepared by another anaesthetist were identified to be underlying root causes for drug administration errors.

Standardised colour-coded compartmentalised syringe trays improve anaesthetic medication visual search and mitigate cognitive load

BACKGROUND

Anaesthetic procedures are complex and subject to human error. Interventions to alleviate medication errors include organised syringe storage trays, but no standardised methods for drug storage have yet been widely implemented.

METHODS

We used experimental psychology methods to explore the potential benefits of colour-coded compartmentalised trays compared with conventional trays in a visual search task. We hypothesised that colour-coded compartmentalised trays would reduce search time and improve error detection for both behavioural and eye-movement responses. We recruited 40 volunteers to identify syringe errors presented in pre-loaded trays for 16 trials in total: 12 error present and four error absent, with eight trials presented for each tray type.

RESULTS

Errors were detected faster when presented in the colour-coded compartmentalised trays than in conventional trays (11.1 s vs 13.0 s, respectively; P=0.026). This finding was replicated for correct responses for error-absent trays (13.3 s vs 17.4 s, respectively; P=0.001) and in the verification time of error-absent trays (13.1 s vs 17.2 s, respectively; P=0.001). On error trials, eye-tracking measures revealed more fixations on the drug error for colour-coded compartmentalised trays (5.3 vs 4.3, respectively; P<0.001), whilst more fixations on the drug lists for conventional trays (8.3 vs 7.1, respectively; P=0.010). On error-absent trials, participants spent longer fixating on the conventional trials (7.2 s vs 5.6 s, respectively; P=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Colour-coded compartmentalisation enhanced visual search efficacy of pre-loaded trays. Reduced fixations and fixation times for the loaded tray were shown for colour-coded compartmentalised trays, indicating a reduction in cognitive load. Overall, colour-coded compartmentalised trays were associated with significant performance improvements when compared with conventional trays.

[NRFit: A new standard to prevent wrong-route medication errors]

Wrong route medication errors due to tubing misconnections can lead to serious adverse events, especially when they concern the neuraxial and perineural routes. It has been favoured by the use of the universal Luer connector for medical devices with a risk of confusion with the intravenous route. The prevention of these errors is based on passive measures such as using specific small-bore connectors, and active measures such as reading Specific labelling which must be systematically affixed to the routes. NRFit connectors are a type of small-bore connector specifically intended for neuraxial and perineural applications. They are based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 80369-6. They are physically incompatible with other small-bore connectors, like the Luer connectors used for intra-venous and enteral medication administration, and thus help prevent inadvertent misconnections. While some countries have already implemented this standard, France is behind schedule in implementing the NRFit connectors due to the absence of strong recommendations or obligations from the authorities. However, NRFit connectors represents real progress for the prevention of medication errors.

[Surgical safety checklist for surgical interventions]

The review is devoted to mostly international data on patient safety during surgical procedures. The author emphasizes surgical safety checklist for surgical interventions as a tool developed by the WHO team. The principal objective of this document is protection of patients from harm following unintended misses and casual circumstances. The author tried to explain the basic principles and ideas underlying the checklist procedure. An importance of understanding the process by administration and surgical team is emphasized because its absence deprives this non-complicated and helpful procedure of necessary sense. The problems of patient safety in hospitals of the Russian Federation are also discussed.

Extension of patient safety initiatives to perioperative care

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient safety has significantly improved during the intraoperative period thanks to the anesthesiologists, surgeons, and nurses. Nowadays, it is within the perioperative period where most of the preventable harm happened to the surgical patient. We aim to highlight the main issues and efforts to improve perioperative patient safety focusing and the relation to intraoperative safety strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is ongoing research on perioperative safety strategies aiming to initiate multidisciplinary interventions on early stages of the perioperative period as well as an increasing focus on preventing harm from postoperative complications.

SUMMARY

Any patient safety strategy to be implemented needs to be framed beyond the operating room and include in the intervention the whole perioperative period.

The impact of "To Err Is Human" on patient safety in anesthesiology. A bibliometric analysis of 20 years of research

Background

Patient safety gained public notoriety following the 1999 report of the Institute of Medicine: To Err is Human - Building a Safer Health System which summarized a culminated decades' worth of research that had so far been largely ignored. The aim of this study was to analyze the report's impact on patient safety research in anesthesiology.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was performed on all anesthesiologic publications from 2000 to 2019 that referenced To Err Is Human. In bibliometric literature, references are understood to represent an author's conscious decision to express a relationship between his own manuscript and the cited document.

Results

The anesthesiologic data base contained 1.036 publications. The journal with the most references to the IOM report is Anesthesia & Analgesia. By analyzing author keywords and patterns of collaboration, changes in the patient safety debate and its core themes in anesthesiology over time could be visualized. The generic notion of "error," while initially a central topic in the scientific discourse, was subsequently replaced by terms representing a more granular, team-oriented, and educational approach. Patient safety research in anesthesia, while profiting from a certain intellectual and conceptual head start, showed a discursive shift toward more managerial, quality-management related topics as observed in the health care system as a whole.

Conclusions

Over the last 20 years, the research context expanded from the initial focus set forth by the IOM report, which ultimately led to an underrepresentation of research on critical incident reporting and systemic approaches to safety. Important collaborations with safety researchers from outside of health care dating back to the 1990's were gradually reduced, while previous research within anesthesiology was aligned with a broader, more managerial patient safety agenda.

Preventing Medication Errors in Pediatric Anesthesia: A Systematic Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Preventing medication errors and improving patient safety in pediatric anesthesia are top priorities. This systematic scoping review was conducted to identify and summarize reports on medication errors in pediatric anesthesia. The study also aimed to qualitatively synthesize medication error situations in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations to eliminate/minimize them.

METHODS

The databases: Cochrane, MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, CINAHL through EBSCO, and PsycINFO were extensively searched from their inception to March 3, 2020. Error situations in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations to minimize/reduce these errors were synthesized qualitatively. Recommendations were graded by level of evidence using the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 39 publications. Dosing errors were the most commonly reported. Scenarios representing medication (n = 33) error situations in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations to eliminate/minimize medication errors (n = 36) were qualitatively synthesized. Of the recommendations, 2 (5.6%) were related to manufacture, 4 (11.1%) were related to policy, 1 (2.8%) was related to presentation to user, 1 (2.8%) was related to process tools, 17 (47.2%) were related to administration, 3 (8.3%) were related to recording/documentation, and 8 (22.2%) recommendations were classified as others. Of those, 29 (80.6%), 3 (8.3%), 3 (8.3%), and 1 (2.8%) were graded as evidence level 1, 2, 3, and 5, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Medication error situations that might occur in pediatric anesthesia and recommendations on how to eliminate/minimize medication errors were also qualitatively synthesized. Adherence to recommendations might reduce the incidence of medication errors in pediatric anesthesia.

Catecholamine-induced acute myocardial stunning after accidental intra-operative noradrenaline bolus

We report a case of catecholamine-induced acute myocardial stunning that occurred in a six-year-old girl. This was triggered by an accidental noradrenaline injection during general anaesthesia for dental surgery. The clinical course was favourable, although cardiac enzymes and echocardiography were significantly altered. The child was discharged home on the second postoperative day, after complete clinical resolution. We emphasise the need to consider shortening the surgical procedure, and to closely monitor patients following a medication error involving vasopressors even in the absence of symptoms. We highlight the importance of a controlled process for storing, identifying, preparing, and handling medications. The identification of weaknesses in the overall process of drug prescription and administration is of utmost importance.

Medication Errors in the Operating Room: An Analysis of Contributing Factors and Related Drugs in Case Reports from a Japanese Medication Error Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to prevent drug-related medication errors in the operating room by clarifying the association between the medication error category with related drugs and contributing factors.

METHODS

We used data from the Japan Council for Quality Health Care's open database on the web. We researched the medication error category, related drugs, and contributing factors. We classified each medication error category into case groups and other medication error categories into control groups. We compared the medication error factors of the 2 groups using multivariate logistic regression analysis on the medication error factors.

RESULTS

The total number of analyzed cases was 541. Incorrect dose was the most common medication error category in 170 cases, followed by incorrect drug in 152 cases. Medication error factors (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval) that were found to be significantly positively associated with incorrect dose were "pressor drugs" (3.0, 1.4-6.4), "anesthesia-inducing drugs" (6.3, 1.7-23.4), "lack of knowledge" (2.0, 1.3-3.3), and "drug administration" (3.4, 1.6-7.4). The medication error factors that were found to be significantly positively associated with incorrect drug were "preparation" (5.7, 3.1-10.5) and "medication passed or picked up" (102.2, 35.7-292.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Medication errors are frequently occurring during drug preparation and administration in the operating room. Medical staff should thoroughly learn about operating room-specific drugs and closely monitor every step of the drug preparation and administration process. It is also important to create a workflow and improve the environment so that it reduces the likelihood of medication errors.

Integration of the Codonics Safe Label System® and the Omnicell XT® Anesthesia Workstation into Pediatric Anesthesia Practice: Utilizing Technology to Increase Medication Labeling Compliance and Decrease Medication Discrepancies While Maintaining User Acceptability

Background: Perioperative medication errors are recognized as a source of patient morbidity and mortality. Medication management systems with built-in scanning and label-printing functions that integrate with medication-dispensing cabinets have the potential to decrease medication administration errors by improving compliance with medication labeling. Whether these management systems will also improve periodic automatic replacement (PAR) inventory control and be accepted by users is unknown. We hypothesized that implementation of the Codonics Safe Label System®, an automated labeling system (ALS), would increase compliance with labeling guidelines and improve PAR inventory control by decreasing medication discrepancies while maintaining user acceptability in the OR. Methods: We audited a cohort of anesthesia workstations and electronic anesthesia records for 2 months to compare dispensed and administered medications and establish a discrepancy baseline. We also observed a convenience sample of syringes to evaluate labeling compliance. Post-implementation of the ALS, we repeated the audit. Finally, an anonymous survey was distributed electronically to providers to assess user acceptability. Results: Pre-implementation the average daily medication discrepancy rate was 9.7%, decreasing to 6.1% post-implementation (χ2 1 = 43.9; P < .0001). Pre-implementation 330 of 696 syringes (47.4%) were either missing a label or labeling elements. After implementation, 100% of all syringes received a label with the complete required labeling information (P < .0001). All respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the system was easy to use, accurate, met their needs, printed labels quickly, improved safety and efficiency, and was recommendable. Conclusion: The ALS significantly increased the rate of best-practice-compliant medication labeling while reducing medication inventory discrepancies. The system was highly accepted by providers.

Analysis of medication errors during anaesthesia in the first 4000 incidents reported to webAIRS

Medication error is a well-recognised cause of harm to patients undergoing anaesthesia. From the first 4000 reports in the webAIRS anaesthetic incident reporting system, we identified 462 reports of medication errors. These reports were reviewed iteratively by several reviewers paying particular attention to their narratives. The commonest error category was incorrect dose (29.4%), followed by substitution (28.1%), incorrect route (7.6%), omission (6.5%), inappropriate choice (5.8%), repetition (5.4%), insertion (4.1%), wrong timing (3.5%), wrong patient (1.5%), wrong side (1.5%) and others (6.5%). Most (58.9%) of the errors resulted in at least some harm (20.8% mild, 31.0% moderate and 7.1% severe). Contributing factors to the medication errors included the presence of look-alike medications, storage of medications in the incorrect compartment, inadequate labelling of medications, pressure of time, anaesthetist fatigue, unfamiliarity with the medication, distraction, involvement of multiple people and poor communication. These data add to current evidence suggesting a persistent and concerning failure effectively to address medication safety in anaesthesia. The wide variation in the nature of the errors and contributing factors underline the need for increased systematic and multifaceted efforts underpinned by a strengthening of the current focus on safety culture to improve medication safety in anaesthesia. This will require the concerted and committed engagement of all concerned, from practitioners at the clinical workface, to those who fund and manage healthcare.

An integrative review of method types used in the study of medication error during anaesthesia: implications for estimating incidence

To meet the WHO vision of reducing medication errors by 50%, it is essential to know the current error rate. We undertook an integrative review of the literature, using a systematic search strategy. We included studies that provided an estimate of error rate (i.e. both numerator and denominator data), regardless of type of study (e.g. RCT or observational study). Under each method type, we categorised the error rate by type, by classification used by the primary studies (e.g. wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong time), and then pooled numerator and denominator data across studies to obtain an aggregate error rate for each method type. We included a total of 30 studies in this review. Of these, two studies were national audit projects containing relevant data, and for 28 studies we identified five discrete method types: retrospective recall (6), self-reporting (7), observational (5), large databases (7), and observing for drug calculation errors (3). Of these 28 studies we included 22 for a numerical analysis and used six to inform a narrative review. Drug error is recalled by ~1 in 5 anaesthetists as something that happened over their career; in self-reports there is an admitted rate of ~1 in 200 anaesthetics. In observed practice, error is seen in almost every anaesthetic. In large databases, drug error constitutes ~10% of anaesthesia incidents reported. Wrong drug or dose form the most common type of error across all five study method types (especially dosing error in paediatric studies). We conclude that medication error is common in anaesthetic practice, although we were uncertain of the precise frequency or extent of harm. Studies concerning medication error are very heterogenous, and we recommend consideration of standardised reporting as in other research domains.

Interventions to reduce medication errors in anesthesia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to provide a synthesis of the interventions designed to reduce medication errors in anesthetized patients.

METHODS

We electronically searched major databases using index and free-text keywords related to anesthesia and medication errors. We included cohort studies exploring interventions to reduce anesthetic medication errors in both adult and pediatric patients. The risk of bias for each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

One thousand five-hundred and fifty-eight titles or abstracts were screened, and 56 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility; eight studies were included in the final analysis. Case reports and retrospective studies were excluded. The quality of most studies (n = 6) was graded as "low". There were three categories of interventions: I) multimodal interventions (6 studies, n = 900,170 medication administrations) showed a reduction in rates of errors of 21-35% per administration and 37-41% per anesthetic; II) improved labels (1 study, n = 55,426 medication administrations) resulted in a 37% reduction in rates of errors per anesthetic; and III) the effect of education was assessed in one study and showed no effect.

CONCLUSION

Multimodal interventions and improved labelling reduce medication errors in anesthetized patients.

Composition and risk assessment of perioperative patient safety incidents reported by anesthesiologists from 2009 to 2019: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Background

Patient safety incident (PSI) reporting has been an important means of improving patient safety and enhancing organizational quality control. Reports of anesthesia-related incidents are of great value for analysis to improve perioperative patient safety. However, the utilization of incident data is far from sufficient, especially in developing countries such as China.

Methods

All PSIs reported by anesthesiologists in a Chinese academic hospital between September 2009 and August 2019 were collected from the incident reporting system. We reviewed the freeform text reports, supplemented with information from the patient medical record system. Composition analysis and risk assessment were performed.

Results

In total, 847 PSIs were voluntarily reported by anesthesiologists during the study period among 452,974 anesthetic procedures, with a reported incidence of 0.17%. Patients with a worse ASA physical status were more likely to be involved in a PSI. The most common type of incident was related to the airway (N = 208, 27%), followed by the heart, brain and vascular system (N = 99, 13%) and pharmacological incidents (N = 79, 10%). Those preventable incidents with extreme or high risk were identified through risk assessment to serve as a reference for the implementation of more standard operating procedures by the department.

Conclusions

This study describes the characteristics of 847 PSIs voluntarily reported by anesthesiologists within eleven years in a Chinese academic hospital. Airway incidents constitute the majority of incidents reported by anesthesiologists. Underreporting is common in China, and the importance of summarizing and utilizing anesthesia incident data should be scrutinized.

Neuraxial and peripheral misconnection events leading to wrong-route medication errors: a comprehensive literature review

We conducted a search of the literature to identify case reports of neuraxial and peripheral nervous system misconnection events leading to wrong-route medication errors. This narrative review covers a 20-year period (1999-2019; English-language publications and abstracts) and included the published medical literature (PubMed and Embase) and public access documents. Seventy-two documents representing 133 case studies and 42 unique drugs were determined relevant. The most commonly reported event involved administering an epidural medication by an intravenous line (29.2% of events); a similar proportion of events (27.7%) involved administering an intravenous medication by an epidural line. Medication intended for intravenous administration, but delivered intrathecally, accounted for 25.4% of events. In the most serious cases, outcomes were directly related to the toxicity of the drug that was unintentionally administered. Patient deaths were reported due to the erroneous administration of chemotherapies (n=16), muscle relaxants (n=4), local anesthetics (n=4), opioids (n=1), and antifibrinolytics (n=1). Severe outcomes, including paraplegia, paraparesis, spinal cord injury, and seizures were reported with the following medications: vincristine, gadolinium, diatrizoate meglumine, doxorubicin, mercurochrome, paracetamol, and potassium chloride. These case reports confirm that misconnection events leading to wrong-route errors can occur and may cause serious injury. This comprehensive characterization of events was conducted to better inform clinicians and policymakers, and to describe an emergent strategy designed to mitigate patient risk.

Distraction in the operating room: A narrative review of environmental and self-initiated distractions and their effect on anesthesia providers

The operating room (OR) is a busy environment with multiple opportunities for distraction. A well-trained anesthesiologist or certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) should remain focused on providing excellent patient care despite these potential distractions. The purpose of this narrative review is to present the multiple types of OR distractions and evaluate each for their level of distraction and their likely impact on patient safety. Distractions in the OR are common and numerous types of distractions exist. Loud OR background noise can lead to miscommunication within the OR team. In several studies, OR noise has been shown to decrease vigilance and possibly delay recognition of non-routine events. The most commonly observed distracting events are "small talk" and staff entering and exiting the OR and most intense distracting events are faulty or unavailable equipment. Phone and pager use can be particularly distracting. Self-initiated distractions can be seen as unprofessional and can negatively impact patient safety. The impact of OR distractions on patient outcomes deserves more vigorous investigation. We must provide anesthesia trainees with the skills to remain vigilant despite numerous and varied OR distractions while also attempting to reduce such OR distractions to improve patient safety. Further research is needed to inform the institution of policies to lessen unnecessary OR distractions.

Ten years of the Helsinki Declaration on patient safety in anaesthesiology: An expert opinion on peri-operative safety aspects

: Patient safety is an activity to mitigate preventable patient harm that may occur during the delivery of medical care. The European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA)/European Union of Medical Specialists had previously published safety recommendations on minimal monitoring and postanaesthesia care, but with the growing public and professional interest it was decided to produce a much more encompassing document. The EBA and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) published a consensus on what needs to be done/achieved for improvement of peri-operative patient safety. During the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki/Finland in 2010, this vision was presented to anaesthesiologists, patients, industry and others involved in health care as the 'Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology'. In May/June 2020, ESA and EBA are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology; a good opportunity to look back and forward evaluating what was achieved in the recent 10 years, and what needs to be done in the upcoming years. The Patient Safety and Quality Committee (PSQC) of ESA invited experts in their fields to contribute, and these experts addressed their topic in different ways; there are classical, narrative reviews, more systematic reviews, political statements, personal opinions and also original data presentation. With this publication we hope to further stimulate implementation of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, as well as initiating relevant research in the future.

Critical Incidents during Anesthesia and Early Post-Anesthetic Period: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study

INTRODUCTION

Critical incidents related to peri-operative anesthesia carry a risk of unwanted patient outcomes. Studying those helps detect problems, which is crucial in minimizing their recurrence. We aimed to identify the frequency of peri-anesthetic critical incidents.

METHODS

This is a hospital-based descriptive cross-sectional study of voluntarily reported incidents, which occurred during anesthesia or following 24 hours among patients subjected to non-cardiac surgery within the calendar year 2019. Patient characteristics, anesthesia, and surgery types, category, context, and outcome of incidents were recorded in an indigenously designed form. Incidents were assigned to attributable (patient, anesthesia or surgery) factor, and were analyzed for the system,equipment or human error contribution.

RESULTS

Altogether 464 reports were studied, which consisted of 524 incidents. Cardiovascular category comprised of 345 (65.8%) incidents. Incidents occurred in 433 (93%) otherwise healthy patients and during 258 (55.6%) spinal anesthetics. Obstetric surgery was involved in 179 (38.6%) incidents. Elective surgery and anesthesia maintenance phase included the context in 293 (63%)and 378 (72%) incidents respectively. Majority incidents 364 (69.5%) were anesthesia-attributable, with system and human error contribution in 196 (53.8%) and 152 (41.7%) cases respectively. All recovered fully except for 25 cases of mortality, which were mostly associated with patient factors, surgical urgency, and general anesthesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical incidents occur even in low-risk patients during anesthesia delivery. Patient factors and emergency surgery contribute to the most serious incidents.

A novel device to prevent errors in medication dosing and dispensing

Erroneous intravenous drug administration has a high probability of causing patient morbidity or mortality during anesthesia. Anesthesiologists are cognizant of this longstanding issue, which has prompted the development of a variety of different protocols and solutions designed to ameliorate the problem and ultimately improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, no definitive solution has been developed yet. Our invention is a medical device designed to drastically reduce, and hopefully upon further development, refinement and subsequent iterations, completely eradicate the potential for medical errors involving medication misidentification and quantitative errors in anesthetic dosing and dispensing.

Root Cause Analysis of Blunders in Anesthesia

The frequency of blunders perioperative because of anesthesia is expanding, and the precise occurrence is significantly thought little of practically due to underreporting. Root cause analysis of majority of anesthesia errors due to lack of knowledge, unfollow the patient procedures and guidelines, medications errors and lack of communication between the members of anesthesia team leading to morbidity or even mortality. The cornerstone in the operating room environment is the communication, especially the patient's data are accumulated and changed continuously during a patient's anesthesia. Continuous attempts for establishing Iideal strategies to reduce the incidence and chance of anesthesia errors. The advancement of a nonaccuse condition where mistakes are transparently revealed and talked about, and guidelines for naming the medication holders, vials, and ampoules are focused. All endeavors ought to be made in the revealing and anticipation of medical drug errors. It is time to incorporate electronic and digital concepts to encourage the evolution of anesthesia-related drug delivery system.

Spinal anesthesia for lumbar spine surgery correlates with fewer total medications and less frequent use of vasoactive agents: A single center experience

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Anesthesiologists at our hospital commonly administer spinal anesthesia for routine lumbar spine surgeries. Anecdotal impressions suggested that patients received fewer anesthesia-administered intravenous medications, including vasopressors, during spinal versus general anesthesia. We hypothesized that data review would confirm these impressions. The objective was to test this hypothesis by comparing specific elements of spinal versus general anesthesia for 1-2 level open lumbar spine procedures.

DESIGN

Retrospective single institutional study.

SETTING

Academic medical center, operating rooms.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients (144 spinal and 619 general anesthesia) identified by automatic structured query of our electronic anesthesia record undergoing lumbar decompression, foraminotomy or microdiscectomy by one surgeon under general or spinal anesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

Spinal or general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

Numbers of medications administered during the case.

MAIN RESULTS

Anesthesiologists administered in the operating room a total of 10 ± 2 intravenous medications for general anesthetics and 5 ± 2 medications for spinal anesthetics (-5, 95% CI -5 to -4, p<0.001, univariate analysis). Multivariable analysis supported this finding (spinal versus general anesthesia: -4, 95% CI -5 to -4, p<0.001). Spinal anesthesia patients were less likely to receive ephedrine, or phenylephrine (by bolus or by infusion) (all p<0.001, Chi-squared test). Spinal anesthesia patients were also less likely to receive labetolol or esmolol (both p = 0.002, Fishers' Exact test). No neurologic injuries were attributed to, or masked by, spinal anesthesia. Three spinal anesthetics failed.

CONCLUSIONS

For routine lumbar surgery in our cohort, spinal compared to general anesthesia was associated with significantly fewer drugs administered during a case and less frequent use of vasoactive agents. Safety implications include greater hemodynamic stability with spinal anesthesia along with reduced risks for medication error and transmission of pathogens associated with medication administration.

Drug Calculation Errors in Anesthesiology Residents and Faculty: An Analysis of Contributing Factors

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist regarding computational drug error rates in anesthesia residents and faculty. We investigated the frequency and magnitude of computational errors in a sample of anesthesia residents and faculty.

METHODS

With institutional review board approval from 7 academic institutions in the United States, a 15-question computational test was distributed during rounds. Error rates and the magnitude of the errors were analyzed according to resident versus faculty, years of practice (or residency training), duration of sleep, type of question, and institution.

RESULTS

A total of 371 completed the test: 209 residents and 162 faculty. Both groups committed 2 errors (median value) per test, for a mean error rate of 17.0%. Twenty percent of residents and 25% of faculty scored 100% correct answers. The error rate for postgraduate year 2 residents was less than for postgraduate year 1 (P = .012). The error rate for faculty increased with years of experience, with a weak correlation (R = 0.22; P = .007). The error rates were independent of the number of hours of sleep. The error rate for percentage-type questions was greater than for rate, dose, and ratio questions (P = .001). The error rates varied with the number of operations needed to calculate the answer (P < .001). The frequency of large errors (100-fold greater or less than the correct answer) by residents was twice that of faculty. Error rates varied among institutions ranged from 12% to 22% (P = .021).

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesiology residents and faculty erred frequently on a computational test, with junior residents and faculty with more experience committing errors more frequently. Residents committed more serious errors twice as frequently as faculty.

Drug administration errors among anesthesiologists: The burden in India - A questionnaire-based survey

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Safe medication is an important part of anesthesia practice. Even though anesthesia practice has become safer with various patient safety initiatives, it is not completely secure from errors which can sometimes lead to devastating complications. Multiple reports on medication errors have been published; yet, there exists a lacuna regarding the quantum of these events occurring in our country or the preventive measures taken. Hence, we conducted a survey to study the occurrence of medication errors, incident reporting, and preventive measures taken by anesthesiologists in our country.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A self-reporting survey questionnaire (24 questions, 4 parts) was mailed to 9000 anesthesiologists registered in Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists via Survey Monkey Website.

RESULTS

A total of 978 completed surveys were returned for analysis (response rate = 9.2%). More than two-thirds (75.6%, n = 740) had experienced drug administration error and 7.7% (57) of respondents faced major morbidity and complications. Haste/Hurry (23.4%) was identified as the most common contributor to medication errors in the operation theater. Loading and double-checking of drugs before administration by concerned anesthesiologist were identified as safety measures to reduce drug errors.

CONCLUSION

Majority of our respondents have experienced drug administration error at some point in their career. A small yet important proportion of these errors have caused morbidity/mortality to patients. The critical incident reporting system should be established for regular audits, an effective root cause analysis of critical events, and to propose measures to prevent the same in future.