An analysis of adverse events and human error associated with the imaging of patients at a major trauma centre in South Africa

Background. There is growing realisation that human error contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality in modern healthcare. A number of taxonomies and classification systems have been developed in an attempt to categorise errors and quantify their impact.Objectives. To record and identify adverse events and errors as they impacted on acute trauma patients undergoing a computed tomography (CT) scan, and then quantify the effect this had on the individual patients. It is hoped that these data will provide evidence to develop error prevention programmes designed to reduce the incidence of human error.Methods. The trauma database was interrogated for the period December 2012 - April 2017. All patients aged >18 years who underwent a CT scan for blunt trauma were included. All recorded morbidity for these patients was reviewed.Results. During the period under review, a total of 1 566 patients required a CT scan at our institution following blunt trauma. Of these, 192 (12.3%, 134 male and 58 female) experienced an error related to the process of undergoing a CT scan. Of 755 patients who underwent a CT scan with intravenous contrast, detailed results were available for 312, and of these 46 (14.7%) had an acute deterioration in renal function. According to Chang's taxonomy, physical harm occurred as follows: grade I n=6, grade II n=62, grade III n=45, grade IV n=11, grade V n=27, grade VI n=21, grade VII n=15, grade VIII n=3 and grade IX n=2. Adverse events were performing an unnecessary scan (n=24), omitting an indicated scan (n=23), performing the scan incorrectly (n=8), scanning the wrong body part (n=7), equipment failure (n=18), omitting treatment following the scan (n=6), incorrect interpretation of the scan (n=65), deterioration during the scan (n=6) and others (n=35). The setting for the error was the ward (n=19), the radiology suite (n=126), the emergency department (n=45) and the operating theatre (n=2). The staff responsible for the adverse events were medical (n=155), nursing (n=4) and radiology staff (n=15). There were 67 errors of commission and 125 errors of omission. The primary cause was a planning problem in 78 cases and an execution problem in 114.Conclusions. Errors and adverse events related to obtaining a CT scan following blunt polytrauma are not uncommon and may impact significantly on the patient. Communication is essential to eliminate errors related to performing the wrong type of scan. The commonest errors relate to misinterpretation of the scan

Is direct consultant supervision of all trauma laparotomies necessary?

Introduction: This study examines the nature of trauma laparotomies performed primarily by trainees and those performed under the direct supervision of a consultant. Materials and Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken at the Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Trauma Service (PMTS), South Africa. All patients who underwent a trauma laparotomy were included. Admission physiology, organ injury and outcome were assessed. Statistical comparison using STATA was performed. Chi-squared analysis was used for categorical variables and unpaired T-test for physiology. Results: A total of 562 patients for trauma laparotomy were identified. Ninety percent (506/562) were male and the mean age was 30 years. The in hospital mortality was 7% (40/562). A consultant was present at 35% of cases (197/562). Consultant-lead operations were found to have a higher rate of mortality 16% vs 2% (32/197 vs 8/365: p < 0.001) and ICU 45% vs 25% (89/197 vs 91/365: p < 0.001) than trainee only.Significant differences in many parameters of admission physiology were identified. Consultant-lead procedures had a higher lactate (3.7 vs 2.9: p 0.0043), respiratory rate (RR) (22 vs 20: p 0.0005), heart rate (HR) (102 vs 96: p 0.0035) and a lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) (115 vs 122: p 0.0001) diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (69 vs 73: p 0.0350) pH (7.34 vs 7.36: p 0.0216) base excess (BE, mEq/L) (-4.1 vs -2.5: p 0.0036) and bicarbonate (HCO3, mEq/L) (21.3 vs 22.5: p 0.0043) than trainee only procedures. Consultants were more likely to be called in for a gunshot than a stab wound (p < 0.001).Of the solid organ injuries, consultants are more likely to be called in for cases with liver injury 23% vs 16% (45/197 vs 58/365: p 0.005) and pancreatic injury 15% vs 3% (30/197 vs 11/365: p < 0.001). Conclusion: Trainees can safely undertake a subset of trauma laparotomies. However, patients with deranged physiology and complex hepatobiliary injuries should be operated on directly by a consultant