Patient Safety in Surgery最新文献

Background: Intraoperative iatrogenic ureteral injuries represent rare technical surgical complications with the potential for adverse patient outcomes, particularly when the diagnosis is delayed. Ideally, these technical complications are recognized and repaired intraoperatively. This study was designed to investigate the root causes and outcomes of missed intraoperative ureteral injuries at a tertiary urology referral centre in Tunisia.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study in a tertiary urology referral centre in Tunis from January 1^st, 2015, to December 31^st, 2020, including all patients with iatrogenic ureteral injury, not diagnosed intraoperatively. The factors associated with the success of endoscopic treatment and those associated with the unfavourable evolution were investigated.

Results: A total of 40 iatrogenic ureteral injuries were included. Gynaecological surgery was responsible for 85% of ureteral injuries, mainly during hysterectomies (55%). The symptoms were dominated by low back pain (37.5%) and pyelonephritis (25%). Endoscopic treatment was attempted in 22 cases, it was sufficient in 12 cases. Ureteral injury required surgical treatment in 24 cases, and ureteroneocystostomy was performed in 16 cases. Nephrectomy was performed in eight cases, representing 20% of injuries, including three cases as the first treatment for late-diagnosed cases with a destroyed kidney. In the analytical study, endoscopic treatment was sufficient in 50% in case of ureteral fistula versus 27% in case of ureteral stenosis (p = 0.04). Nephrectomy was performed in 10% of cases when ureteral injury was diagnosed within the first month postoperatively compared to 60% of cases when this delay exceeded one month (p = 0.004).

Conclusion: Iatrogenic ureteral injuries discovered postoperatively are mostly secondary to gynaecologic surgery. Although endoscopic treatment is usually performed as a first treatment, a more aggressive surgical is often necessary, with a nephrectomy rate of 20%.

Background: One of the most common surgical emergencies, intestinal obstruction is rarely the result of an inadvertently retained foreign object (also known as a gossypiboma), which may not present symptoms for a lifetime. It also carries additional legal burdens, which may account for the rarity of its reports.

Case presentation: We report a 24-year-old Sudanese female with a history of emergency Caesarean section two years before the admission presented with abdominal distension and absolute constipation, which was diagnosed as intestinal obstruction with a retained gauzed found within the small intestine. Moreover, a review of recent African-reported cases was done to find relatively similar cases.

Conclusion: Adhering to the standard of care in surgical theaters and integrating new methods of prevention like tagged gauze could help to decrease the rate of such cases in the future.

Introduction: The "second victim" phenomenon refers to the distress and other negative consequences that physicians experience when they commit medical error. There has been increasing awareness about this phenomenon and efforts are being made to address it. However, there is dearth of information about it in developing countries. This study explored the experiences of surgical resident doctors of the University College Hospital in Ibadan, Nigeria about the "second victim" phenomenon and the support they had following medical errors.

Methods: This is a phenomenology study in which qualitative data were obtained from interviews with 31 resident doctors across 10 surgical units/departments. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and data were coded inductively. Data were analyzed using content analysis method. Themes and subthemes were generated using axial coding. The themes were then integrated using selective coding.

Results: There were 31 participants and 10(32.3%) were females. All had witnessed other physicians encountering medical errors while 28(90.3%) had been directly involved in medical errors. Most of the errors were at the inter-operative stage. Prolonged work hours with inadequate sleep were identified as major causes of most medical errors. The feelings following medical errors were all negative and was described as 'stressful'. Most of the residents got support from their colleagues, mostly contemporaries following medical errors, and many viewed medical errors as a learning point to improve their practice. However, there was a general belief that the systemic support following medical errors was inadequate.

Conclusion: The "second victim" phenomenon was common among the study group with consequent negative effects. Normalizing discussions about medical errors, reduction of work hours and meticulous intraoperative guidance may reduce medical errors and its consequences on the surgical residents. Steps should be taken within the system to address this issue effectively.

Background: Healthcare systems are shifting toward "patient-centered" care often without assessing the values important to patients. Analogously, the interests of the patient may be disparate with physician interests, as pay-for-performance models become common. The purpose of the study was to determine which medical preferences are essential for patients during their surgical care.

Methods: This prospective, observational study surveyed 102 patients who had undergone a primary knee replacement and/or hip replacement surgery about hypothetical scenarios regarding their surgical experience. Data analysis included categorical variables presented as a number and percent, while continuous variables presented as mean and standard deviation. Statistical analysis for anticoagulation data included the Pearson chi-square test and one-way ANOVA test.

Results: A large majority, 73 patients (72%), would not pay to have a four-centimeter or smaller incision. The remaining 29 patients (28%) would prefer to have a four-centimeter or smaller incision and would pay a mean of $1,328 ± 1,629 for that day. A significant number of patients preferred not to use anticoagulation (p = 0.019); however, the value attributed to avoiding a specific method of anticoagulation was found not to be significant (p = 0.507).

Conclusions: The study determined the metrics prioritized by hospitals and surgeons are not important to the majority of patients when they evaluate their own care. These disconnects in the entitlements patients expect and receive can be solved by including patients in discussions with physicians and hospital systems.