PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C Z Hayward

Publications and source records attributed to C Z Hayward.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

An objective analysis of process errors in trauma resuscitations.

OBJECTIVE: A computer-based system to apply trauma resuscitation protocols to patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma was previously validated for 97 consecutive patients at a Level 1 trauma center by a panel of the trauma attendings and further refined by a panel of national trauma experts. The purpose of this article is to describe how this system is now used to objectively critique the actual care given to those patients for process errors in reasoning, independent of outcome. METHODS: A chronological narrative of the care of each patient was presented to the computer program. The actual care was compared with the validated computer protocols at each decision point and differences were classified by a predetermined scoring system from 0 to 100, based on the potential impact on outcome, as critical/noncritical/no errors of commission, omission, or procedure selection. RESULTS: Errors in reasoning occurred in 100% of the 97 cases studied, averaging 11.9/case. Errors of omission were more prevalent than errors of commission (2. 4 errors/case vs 1.2) and were of greater severity (19.4/error vs 5. 1). The largest number of errors involved the failure to record, and perhaps observe, beside information relevant to the reasoning process, an average of 7.4 missing items/patient. Only 2 of the 10 adverse outcomes were judged to be potentially related to errors of reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Process errors in reasoning were ubiquitous, occurring in every case, although they were infrequently judged to be potentially related to an adverse outcome. Errors of omission were assessed to be more severe. The most common error was failure to consider, or document, available relevant information in the selection of appropriate care.

Abdominal Injuries↗
PubMed1997

On-line quality [corrected] assurance in the initial definitive management of multiple trauma: evaluating system potential.

The TraumAID system has been designed to provide on-line decision support throughout the initial definitive management of injured patients. Here we describe its retrospective evaluation and the use we subsequently made of judges comments on the validation data to evaluate TraumaTIQ, a new critiquing interface for TraumAID, investigating the question of whether, with timely recording of information, a system could produce commentary in line with that of human experts. Our results show that (1) comparable commentary can be produced, and (2) validation studies, which take great time and effort to conduct, can produce useful data beyond their original design goals.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1991

Detection of preoperatively unrecognized multiple pancreatic pseudocysts by intraoperative ultrasonography. Report of two cases.

During two pancreatic operations, intraoperative ultrasonography detected multiple pancreatic pseudocysts that were unrecognized preoperatively. In each operation, a single pseudocyst was detected by preoperative ultrasonography, computed tomography, and intraoperative surgical exploration. In addition, high-resolution ultrasonography used during the operations also identified and precisely localized additional smaller pseudocysts. Also, the use of color Doppler imaging during the operations enabled the delineation of small blood vessels around the pseudocysts. The accurate diagnosis of multiple pseudocysts and the precise anatomic information provided by intraoperative ultrasonography permitted appropriate surgical treatment of the pancreatic pseudocysts which, in turn, might help prevent recurrence of the disease.

Adult↗
PubMed1987

Is there gender bias in the evaluation of surgical residents?

Although it might be assumed that the performance of surgical residents is assessed by faculty without regard to gender, no study to date has been undertaken to evaluate this. for 19 years, the Department of Surgery in our institution has had female faculty members to evaluate residents and, with the exception of 1969, female residents to be evaluated. All residents are evaluated by supervisory faculty after each clinical rotation. The same evaluation process has been used throughout this time, assessing residents on a five-point scale (1 = best) in each of six attributes: ethics, judgment, technical skills, knowledge, interpersonal skills, and work habits. The faculty evaluations of general surgery residents from academic years 1967 to 1985 were reviewed. A total of 2356 evaluations of 144 residents (22% female) by 69 faculty members (22% female) was available. For valid comparison, a subset of 702 evaluations was selected. Included were only those evaluations in which residents at the same level of training during the same academic year were evaluated by the same faculty members and in which both the resident and faculty groups had both male and female members. The average scores for male and female residents were nearly identical as determined by male and female faculty members, and no differences were statistically significant. In our program, with more than 20% women residents and faculty members over a 19-year period, no bias related to gender was demonstrated.

Clinical Competence↗