Inaccurate reporting of simulated critical anaesthetic incidents

Eleven anaesthetists completed a simulated anaesthetic which was deliberately complicated by a slow progressive bradycardia followed by an episode of severe bronchospasm. After the simulation, each anaesthetist was asked to complete an anaesthetic chart and a critical incident report. Considerable discrepancies were found between the anaesthetists' written accounts, a videotape of their performance and actual data from the simulator. During the simulations, all of the anaesthetists reacted appropriately and treated their ''patient'' successfully but their written accounts showed a tendency to record ''typical'' rather than actual events and to ignore events not consistent with their final diagnosis. Only four anaesthetists mentioned bradycardia in their written description and none accurately described the changes in arterial pressure during the episode of bronchospasm. The findings are in keeping with other studies which suggest that people record events as ''schemata'' rather than as collections of discrete facts. These results have significant implications for those involved in the teaching of anaesthesia and in the analysis of critical incidents.