MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adverse Events Associated with Bone Marrow Biopsy In A Resident Training Program; First Do No Harm

2011· article· en· W2589956626 on OpenAlexaff
James T. Paul, Emily Rimmer, Carmen Morales, Graham Bay, Kiraninder Lamba, Ryan Zarychanski

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematological disorders and diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone marrowBiopsyQuality assuranceComplicationAdverse effectSurgeryRadiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 4775 BACKGROUND: Bone marrow aspirates and biopsies are commonly performed to evaluate a variety of hematological abnormalities. Generally, it is regarded as a safe procedure; however, the complication rate is uncertain. Much of the data surrounding bone marrow complications derives from retrospective, voluntary reported data from the UK and is estimated to occur in 0.08 – 0.12% of procedures. Data also suggests that the quality of bone marrow specimens may vary with operator expertise. OBJECTIVES: In this report we present a case series of adverse events following bone marrow examinations performed by internal medical residents. In response to these procedural outcomes, we will outline a comprehensive quality improvement and quality assurance initiative designed to improve resident training, ensure patient safety, and enhance sample quality. CASE SERIES: Four cases of attempted bone marrow aspirate and biopsy on the Clinical Teaching Units (CTU) at the Health Science Centre from June 2010 to April 2011 were identified. All four procedures were performed by internal medicine residents at varying levels of training and were unsuccessful despite multiple attempts. In two of the cases the GIM attending was also unsuccessful in obtaining sample. Two cases of major bleeding occurred necessitating multiple units of red blood cells to be transfused and one patient required admission to the intensive care unit. In another case the patient was unable to ambulate for 3 days due to severe leg pain at the site of attempted biopsy. Improper landmarking for the procedure was common in all cases and confirmed with 3D computed axial tomographic rendering in 2 patients. INTERVENTION: In response to these patient adverse patient outcomes and with patient safety in mind, we decided that, until a more detailed plan could be developed, all bone marrow biopsies performed on the CTU will be supervised by an attending hematologist. With involvement from stakeholders in internal medicine, hematology and hematopathology, we developed a multifaceted quality improvement and assurance initiative. We designed an educational curriculum starting with an academic half day that would consist of an instructional video followed by a practical session in the Clinical Learning and Simulation Facility. This will allow residents to strengthen communication skills by obtaining informed consent and build important procedural skills through the use of simulators. Learning will be reinforced through resident rotations on the Hematology service that will include participation in a weekly bone marrow clinic. This clinic would allow residents an opportunity to perform a number of successive bone marrows in a controlled environment under the supervision of an attending hematologist. To evaluate resident performance and adverse events, a data collection instrument will be developed to monitor the success of these interventions for bone marrows completed on the CTUs. A credentialing process to ensure competency of resident training is being considered. ANCTICIPATED RESULTS: With the implementation of a multifaceted and comprehensive strategy we expect to improve resident training, ensure patient safety, and enhance sample quality resulting in less need for repeat procedures. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHematological disorders and diagnosticsFrench-language works237,207