MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409319873 · doi:10.1186/s13037-025-00432-4

Wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and retained foreign object events in out-of-hospital settings: analysis of closed medico-legal complaints in Canada (2012–2021)

2025· article· en· W4409319873 on OpenAlexaffabout
Omar Hajjaj, Joanna Zaslow, Reem El Sherif, Diane L Héroux, Richard Mimeault, Jacqueline H. Fortier, Gary Garber

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Safety in Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemostasis and retained surgical items
Canadian institutionsCanadian Medical Protective AssociationUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaCARE CanadaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgical sentinel events (SSEs) are serious safety incidents associated with significant patient harm and medico-legal consequences for healthcare teams and institutions. SSEs include wrong-site surgeries, wrong procedures, and unintentional retention of foreign objects. SSEs occur in hospitals and out-of-hospital operating spaces (physician offices or ambulatory surgical centres). It is unclear how the resource constraints and workflow differences of an out-of-hospital setting contribute to SSEs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review and descriptive content analysis of all out-of-hospital SSEs reported to the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) between 2012 and 2021. Medico-legal files, medical records, and peer expert opinions were analyzed to identify the contributing factors to out-of-hospital wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and retained-object SSEs. RESULTS: A total of 276 medico-legal complaints involved a wrong-site, wrong-procedure or retained-object SSE, of which 24 (24/276; 9%) occurred out of hospital. Only twenty of these out-of-hospital complaints were included in the qualitative content analysis. We identified five main contributing factor categories to out-of-hospital SSEs. These categories included (1) incomplete preoperative verification, (2) inadequate intraoperative surgical counts, (3) insufficient review of patient medical records, (4) surgery performed without the necessary resources, and (5) administrative errors or office disorganization. Half of the complaints were assigned more than one contributing factor. The majority of out-of-hospital SSEs (19/20; 95%) resulted in an unfavourable outcome for the operating physician and most (18/20; 90%) required additional healthcare resources to resolve or mitigate the consequences of the SSE. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the contributing factors to an out-of-hospital SSE enables targeted improvements in facility protocols to support patient safety. Some factors identified in this dataset overlap with hospital-based contributing factors previously identified in literature (incomplete preoperative verification and inadequate surgical counts), whereas other novel factors are associated with the practice environment of an out-of-hospital setting (resource constraints, office disorganization). Addressing the identified contributing factors may mitigate the risk of SSEs in all facilities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Safety in SurgerySame topicHemostasis and retained surgical itemsFrench-language works237,207