Prospective methods for identifying perioperative risk-assessment methods for patient safety over 20 years: a systematic review

被引:2
作者
Heideveld-Chevalking, A. J. [1 ]
Calsbeek, H. [2 ]
Hofland, J. [3 ]
Meijerink, W. J. H. J. [1 ]
Wolff, A. P. [4 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Operating Rooms, Med Ctr, POB 9101,715, NL-6525 GA Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, IQ Healthcare, Med Ctr, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Anaesthesiol, Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[4] Univ Groningen, Dept Anaesthesiol, Med Ctr, Groningen, Netherlands
来源
BJS OPEN | 2020年 / 4卷 / 02期
关键词
ADVERSE EVENTS; SURGERY; QUALITY; HOSPITALS; CARE; IDENTIFICATION; CRITERIA; HAZARDS; COHORT; TIME;
D O I
10.1002/bjs5.50246
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Serious preventable surgical events still occur despite considerable efforts to improve patient safety. In addition to learning from retrospective analyses, prospective risk-assessment methods may help to decrease preventable events further by targeting perioperative hazards. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the methods used to identify perioperative patient safety risks prospectively, and to describe the risk areas targeted, the quality characteristics and feasibility of methods. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. All studies describing the development and results of prospective methods to identify perioperative patient safety risks were included and assessed on methodological quality. Exclusion criteria were interventional studies, studies targeting one specific issue, studies reporting on structural factors relating to fundamental hospital items, and non-original or case studies. Results The electronic search resulted in 16 708 publications, but only 20 were included for final analysis, describing five prospective risk-assessment methods. Direct observation was used in most studies, often in combination. Direct (16 studies) and indirect (4 studies) observations identified (potential) adverse events (P)AEs, process flow disruptions, poor protocol compliance and poor practice performance. (Modified) Healthcare Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (HFMEA (TM)) (5 studies) targeted potential process flow disruption failures, and direct (P)AE surveillance (3 studies) identified (P)AEs prospectively. Questionnaires (3 studies) identified poor protocol compliance, surgical flow disturbances and patients' willingness to ask questions about their care. Overall, quality characteristics and feasibility of the methods were poorly reported. Conclusion The direct (in-person) observation appears to be the primary prospective risk-assessment method that currently may best help to target perioperative hazards. This is a reliable method and covers a broad spectrum of perioperative risk areas.
引用
收藏
页码:197 / 205
页数:9
相关论文
共 45 条
  • [41] Systems approaches to surgical quality and safety - From concept to measurement
    Vincent, C
    Moorthy, K
    Sarker, SK
    Chang, A
    Darzi, AW
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2004, 239 (04) : 475 - 482
  • [42] Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review
    Vincent, C
    Neale, G
    Woloshynowych, M
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7285): : 517 - 519
  • [43] Estimate of the global volume of surgery in 2012: an assessment supporting improved health outcomes
    Weiser, Thomas G.
    Haynes, Alex B.
    Molina, George
    Lipsitz, Stuart R.
    Esquivel, Micaela M.
    Uribe-Leitz, Tarsicio
    Fu, Rui
    Azad, Tej
    Chao, Tiffany E.
    Berry, William R.
    Gawande, Atul A.
    [J]. LANCET, 2015, 385 : 11 - 11
  • [44] Prevention of 3 "Never Events" in the Operating Room: Fires, Gossypiboma, and Wrong-Site Surgery
    Zahiri, Hamid R.
    Stromberg, Jeffrey
    Skupsky, Hadas
    Knepp, Erin K.
    Folstein, Matthew
    Silverman, Ronald
    Singh, Devinder
    [J]. SURGICAL INNOVATION, 2011, 18 (01) : 55 - 60
  • [45] Adverse events and potentially preventable deaths in Dutch hospitals: results of a retrospective patient record review study
    Zegers, M.
    de Bruijne, M. C.
    Wagner, C.
    Hoonhout, L. H. F.
    Waaijman, R.
    Smits, M.
    Hout, F. A. G.
    Zwaan, L.
    Christiaans-Dingelhoff, I.
    Timmermans, D. R. M.
    Groenewegen, P. P.
    van der Wal, G.
    [J]. QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE, 2009, 18 (04): : 297 - U79