Disclosing and reporting medical errors: Cross-sectional survey of Swiss anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: There is limited research on anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication, particularly concerning disclosing errors to patients. OBJECTIVE: To characterise anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients and reporting errors within the hospital, and to examine factors influencing their willingness to disclose or report errors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Switzerland's five university hospitals' departments of anaesthesia in 2012/2013. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and eighty-one clinically active anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication. RESULTS: The overall response rate of the survey was 52% (281/542). Respondents broadly endorsed disclosing harmful errors to patients (100% serious, 77% minor errors, 19% near misses), but also reported factors that might make them less likely to actually disclose such errors. Only 12% of respondents had previously received training on how to disclose errors to patients, although 93% were interested in receiving training. Overall, 97% of respondents agreed that serious errors should be reported, but willingness to report minor errors (74%) and near misses (59%) was lower. Respondents were more likely to strongly agree that serious errors should be reported if they also thought that their hospital would implement systematic changes after errors were reported [(odds ratio, 2.097 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 3.81)]. Significant differences in attitudes between departments regarding error disclosure and reporting were noted. CONCLUSION: Willingness to disclose or report errors varied widely between hospitals. Thus, heads of department and hospital chiefs need to be aware of the importance of local culture when it comes to error communication. Error disclosure training and improving feedback on how error reports are being used to improve patient safety may also be important steps in increasing anaesthesiologists' communication of errors.

Evaluation of postoperative handover using a tool to assess information transfer and teamwork.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, validity, and reliability of a postoperative Handover Assessment Tool (PoHAT) and to evaluate the current practices of the postoperative handover at 2 large European hospitals. BACKGROUND: Postoperative handover is one of the most critical phases in the care of a patient undergoing surgery. However, handovers are largely informal and variable. A thorough understanding of the problem is necessary before safety solutions can be considered. METHODS: Postoperative Handover Assessment Tool (PoHAT) was developed through task analysis, semistructured interviews, literature review, and learned society guidelines. Subsequent validation was done by the Delphi technique. Feasibility and reliability were then evaluated by direct observation of handovers at 2 large European hospitals. Outcomes measures included information omissions, task errors, teamwork evaluation, duration of handover, and number of distractions. RESULTS: The tool was feasible to use and inter-rater reliability was excellent (r = 0.96, P < 0.001). Evaluation of handover at the 2 study sites revealed a median of 8 information omissions per handover at both the centers (IQR 7-10). There were a median of 3 task errors per handover (IQR 2-4). Thirty-five percent of handovers had distractions, which included competing demands for nurse attention, bleeps, and case-irrelevant communication. CONCLUSION: This study has established the feasibility, validity, and reliability of a tool for evaluating postoperative handover. In addition to serving as an objective measure of postoperative handover, the tool can also be used to evaluate the efficacy of any intervention developed to improve this process. The study has also shown that postoperative handover is characterized by incomplete transfer of information and failures in the performance of key tasks.

Assessment of construct validity of a virtual reality laparoscopy simulator.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess whether virtual reality (VR) can discriminate between the skills of novices and intermediate-level laparoscopic surgical trainees (construct validity), and whether the simulator assessment correlates with an expert's evaluation of performance. METHODS: Three hundred and seven (307) participants of the 19th-22nd Davos International Gastrointestinal Surgery Workshops performed the clip-and-cut task on the Xitact LS 500 VR simulator (Xitact S.A., Morges, Switzerland). According to their previous experience in laparoscopic surgery, participants were assigned to the basic course (BC) or the intermediate course (IC). Objective performance parameters recorded by the simulator were compared to the standardized assessment by the course instructors during laparoscopic pelvitrainer and conventional surgery exercises. RESULTS: IC participants performed significantly better on the VR simulator than BC participants for the task completion time as well as the economy of movement of the right instrument, not the left instrument. Participants with maximum scores in the pelvitrainer cholecystectomy task performed the VR trial significantly faster, compared to those who scored less. In the conventional surgery task, a significant difference between those who scored the maximum and those who scored less was found not only for task completion time, but also for economy of movement of the right instrument. CONCLUSIONS: VR simulation provides a valid assessment of psychomotor skills and some basic aspects of spatial skills in laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, VR allows discrimination between trainees with different levels of experience in laparoscopic surgery establishing construct validity for the Xitact LS 500 clip-and-cut task. Virtual reality may become the gold standard to assess and monitor surgical skills in laparoscopic surgery.

Role of the physician in prehospital management of trauma: European perspective.

Advanced prehospital trauma life support is challenged as a whole. Formerly well-accepted basic principles for stabilizing vital functions of the severely injured patient like volume resuscitation, airway protection, and immobilization have been questioned. In prehospital management of trauma, the role of not only the physician but also the paramedic must be redefined. In the absence of evidence about the effectiveness of advanced trauma life support training for paramedic crews, the needs of trauma victims and capacities of emergency medical systems must be re-evaluated. Assessment of patients' conditions, including mechanism of trauma (blunt vs penetrating), source of hypovolemic shock (controlled vs ongoing hemorrhage), concomitant disease (as in elderly patients), and identification of therapeutic goals (such as for cerebral perfusion pressure or secondary brain damage caused by hypoxia in severe head injury), is a subject of increasing importance. Invasive airway management techniques require skills, expertise, and daily routines available only to experienced in-hospital personnel. The controversial issue of paramedic vs physician-based systems should be abandoned. It is the skill, the technique, the awareness of pitfalls, and the capability to handle complications that makes the difference, not the person in possession of the skill.