MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1975896248 · doi:10.1097/01.anes.0000290620.54964.96

Medication Error: A Leading Cause of Anesthesia-related Morbidity and Mortality

2007· letter· en· W1975896248 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Meyer, Beverley A. Orser, Robert Byrick

Notice bibliographique

RevueAnesthesiology · 2007
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePatient Safety and Medication Errors
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAnesthesiaIntensive care medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We read with great interest the analysis of anesthesia-related deaths registered by the Danish Patient Insurance Association.1Hove et al. 1are to be congratulated for reporting these important results. The authors categorized 24 fatal cases by their underlying causes: airway management, ventilation management, placement of a central venous catheter, medication errors, transfusion error, infusion pump problems, and regional blockade. We noted that 8 of the 24 anesthesia-related deaths described were most likely attributable to a drug error: 4 overdoses (benzodiazepines, methohexital, thiopental, nitroglycerine), 3 infusion pump errors, and 1 patient likely received a large intrathecal dose of mepivacaine. Therefore, the frequency of medication-related incidents exceeded the 4 deaths that resulted from loss of the airway and 4 from complications related to central venous line insertion. It seems that the single most common cause of anesthetic-related death was a drug error.These findings are consistent with an analysis from the Canadian Medical Protective Association of closed medicolegal claims against anesthesiologists.2The Canadian Medical Protective Association provides malpractice insurance for most physicians in Canada. From 1998 to 2002, there were 232 closed legal actions against anesthesiologists. Medication error was the most common cause involving 52% of the claims. It is noteworthy that the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project reports the proportion of drug errors as 4%.2This number has been consistent throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Reasons for the discrepancy in the relative frequency of medication errors reported in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Database from those in Demark and Canada requires further exploration but may be attributed, in part, to differences in the categorization of root causes.The impact of drug error in anesthetic practice is not new and will not surprise experienced anesthesiologists. A survey by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society found that 85% of participants had experienced at least one drug error or “near miss.”3Most of these errors were of minor consequence; however, 1.8% resulted in major morbidity (cardiac arrest, stroke, permanent injury) or death. The misidentification of a syringe was the most common cause. In 1984, Cooper et al. 4published a classic analysis of critical incidents in anesthesia management. Breathing circuit disconnect was the most common identified factor; however, reanalyzing their data set indicates that medication-related events far exceeded airway and ventilation problems. Of a total of 507 incidents, 169 were attributed to errors or problems in drug administration. Equally important, when incidents with “substantive negative outcomes” were further analyzed (defined as mortality, cardiac arrest, cancelled operative procedure, or extended recovery room, intensive care unit, or hospital stay) approximately 25% of them resulted from a drug error.Together, these studies suggest that the impact of medication error has been underestimated by the lack of a common taxonomy for anesthesia-related adverse events. More importantly, the data beseech us to acknowledge the problem and develop innovative strategies to reduce the likelihood of a drug error in anesthetic practice.*University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. rachel.meyer@utoronto.ca

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesIntégrité de la recherche
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,263
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,137
Tête enseignante GPT0,430
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2007
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAnesthesiologyMême sujetPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsTravaux en français237 207