Patient Safety in Surgery最新文献

Bakground: The operating room is a demanding and time-constrained setting, in comparison to primary care settings, where perioperative medication administration is more complicated and there is a high risk that the patient will experience a medication error. Without consulting the pharmacist or seeking assistance from other staff members, anesthesia clinicians prepare, deliver, and monitor strong anesthetic drugs. The purpose of this study was to determine the Incidence and root causes of medication errors by anesthetists in Amhara region, Ethiopia.

Methods: A multi-center cross sectional web-based survey study was conducted from October 1 to November 30, 2022, across eight referral and teaching hospitals of Amhara region. A self-administered semi structured questionnaire was distributed using survey planet. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 20. Descriptive statistics were computed and binary logistic regression was used for data analysis. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The study included 108 anesthetists in total, yielding a response rate of 42.35%. Out of 104 anesthetists, Majority of participants (82.7%) were male. During their clinical practice, more than half (64.4%) of participants experienced atleast one drug administration error. 39 (37.50%) of the respondents revealed that they experienced more medication errors while on night shifts. Anesthetists who did not always double-check their anesthetic drugs before administration had a 3.51 higher risk of developing MAEs compared to those who always double-check anesthetic drugs before administration (AOR = 3.51; 95% CI: 1.34, 9.19). Additionally, participants who administer medications that have been prepared by someone else are about five times more likely to experience MAEs than participants who prepare their own anesthetic medications prior to administration (AOR = 4.95; 95% CI: 1.54, 15.95).

Conclusion: The study found a considerable rate of errors in the administration of anaesthetic drugs. The failure to always double-check medications before administration and the use of drugs prepared by another anaesthetist were identified to be underlying root causes for drug administration errors.

Background: Retained foreign objects (RFO) after surgery are rare, serious patient safety events. In international comparisons based on routine data, Switzerland had remarkably high RFO rates. The objectives of this study were to 1) explore national key stakeholders' views on RFO as a safety problem, its preventability and need for action in Switzerland; and 2) to assess their interpretation of Switzerland's RFO incidence compared to other countries.

Methods: A semi-structured expert survey was conducted among national key representatives, including clinician experts, patient advocates, health administration representatives and other relevant stakeholders (n = 21). Data were coded and analyzed to generate themes related to the study questions following a deductive approach.

Results: Experts in this study unequivocally emphasized the tragedy for individual patients affected by RFOs. Productivity pressure and the strong economization of operating rooms were perceived as detrimental to safety culture, which was seen as essential for RFO prevention, specifically by those working in the OR. RFOs were seen as "maximally minimizable" but not completely preventable. There was strong agreement that within country differences in RFO risk between Swiss hospitals existed. On the systems level and compared to other safety issues, RFO were having less urgency for most experts. The international comparison of RFO incidences raised serious skepticism across all groups of experts. The validity of the data was questioned and the dominant interpretation of Switzerland's high RFO incidence compared to other countries was a "reporting artifact" based on high coding quality in Swiss hospitals. While most experts thought that the published RFO incidence warrants in-depth analysis of the data, there was little agreement about who's role it was to initiate any further activities.

Conclusions: This investigation offers valuable insights into the perspectives of significant stakeholders concerning RFOs, their root causes, and preventability. The findings demonstrate how international comparative safety data are perceived, interpreted, and utilized by national experts to derive conclusive insights.

Background: Obesity is an independent risk factor for the occurrence of surgical site infections (SSIs) following all types of surgeries, especially after Caesarean section (C-section). SSIs increase postoperative morbidity, health economic cost and their management is quiet complex with no universal therapeutic consensus. Herein, we report a challenging case of a deep SSI after C-section in a central morbidly obese woman managed successfully by panniculectomy.

Case presentation: A 30-year-old black African pregnant woman with marked abdominal panniculus extending to the pubic area, a waist circumference = 162 cm and BMI = 47.7 kg/m² underwent an emergency CS indicated for acute fetal distress. By day five post-operation, she developed a deep parietal incisional infection unremitting to antibiotic therapy, wound dressings and beside wound debridement till the 26th postoperative day. A large abdomen panniculus and maceration of the wound enhanced by central obesity increased the risk of failure of spontaneous closure; thus, an abdominoplasty by panniculectomy was indicated. The patient underwent panniculectomy on the 26th day after the initial surgery and her post-operative course was uneventful. Wound esthetics was satisfactory three months later. Adjuvant dietary and psychological management were associated.

Conclusion: Post-Caesarean deep SSI is a frequent complication in obese patients. A panniculectomy may be a safe and promising therapeutic surgical option with good cosmetic results and little postoperative complications when used in a multidisciplinary anti-obesogenic approach.

Background: Most of the scoring systems to predict difficult laparoscopic cholecystectomy are based on pre-operative clinical and radiological findings. Recently the Parkland Grading Scale system was introduced as a simple intra-operative grading scale. This study aims to utilize the Parkland Grading Scale system to assess the intraoperative challenges during laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Method: This was a prospective, cross-sectional study done at Chitwan Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Chitwan, Nepal. All the patients underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy from April 2020 to March 2021. Based on the initial intra-operative finding, Parkland Grading Scale was noted and at the end of the surgery, the level of difficulty was given by the operating surgeon. All the pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative findings were compared with the scale.

Results: Out of 206 patients, there were 176 (85.4%) females, and 30 (14.6%) males. The median age was 41 years (Range 19-75). The median body mass index was 23.67 kg/m2. There were 35(17%) patients with a history of previous surgery. The rate of conversion to open surgery was 5.8%. According to Parkland Grading Scale, 67(32.5%), 75(36.4%), 42(20.4%), 15(7.3%), and 7(3.4%) were graded as grade 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively. There was a difference in the Parkland grading scale in patients with a history of acute cholecystitis, gallbladder wall thickness, pericholecystic collection, stone size, and body mass index (p < 0.05). The total operative time, level of difficulty in surgery, rate of help needed from colleagues or replacement as the main surgeon, bile spillage, drain placement, gallbladder decompression, and conversion rate all increased with an increase in scale (p < 0.05). There was a significant increase in the development of post-operative fever, and post-operative hospital stay as the scale increased (p < 0.05). The Tukey-Kramer test for all pair-wise comparisons revealed that each grade was significantly different from each other (p < 0.05) on the difficulty of surgery except for grade 4 from 5.

Conclusion: Parkland Grading Scale system is a reliable intra-operative grading system to assess the difficulty in laparoscopic cholecystectomy and helps the surgeon to change the strategy of surgery. An increase in scale is associated with an increased difficulty level of the surgery.