PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9506400

The anaesthesia critical incident reporting system: an experience based database.

Abstract

To date there have been fewer than a dozen studies on the nature of, and contributory factors in, critical incidents (CI) in anaesthesia. The first of these, by Cooper and colleagues, showed that the vast majority of their CI involved human error [1]. Most recently, the on-going Australian Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS), with now more than 2000 reports, has shows that aspects of 'system failure' may constitute the bulk of the contributory factors, even though some human error may be detected in about 80% of the analysed cases [2]. We set up a Critical Incident Reporting System (CIRS) to collect anonymous CI in anaesthesia using a reporting form on the Internet. CIRS analysis of the first 60 cases corroborates the findings of previous CI studies. In addition, our preliminary results have shown certain important trends, especially those concerning the contributory factor of communication in the Operating Theatre. Although to date we are unable to assess the educational importance of these CI reports, we believe that there is great potential for this aspect of CIRS.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S Staender, J Davies, B Helmreich, B Sexton, M Kaufmann. 1997. The anaesthesia critical incident reporting system: an experience based database.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1386-5056(97)00087-7

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Regional versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Regional and general anaesthesia (GA) are commonly used for caesarean section (CS) and both have advantages and disadvantages. It is important to clarify what type of anaesthesia is more efficacious. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of regional anaesthesia (RA) with those of GA on the outcomes of CS. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 December 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), and EMBASE (1980 to December 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating the use of RA and GA in women who had CS for any indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, data extraction and trial quality. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies (1586 women) were included in this review. Women who had either epidural anaesthesia or spinal anaesthesia were found to have a significantly lower difference between pre and postoperative haematocrit (weighted mean difference (WMD) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.93, one trial, 231 women) and (WMD 3.10, 95% CI 1.73 to 4.47, one trial, 209 women). Compared to GA, women having either an epidural anaesthesia or spinal had a lower estimated maternal blood loss (WMD -126.98 millilitres, 95% CI -225.06 to -28.90, two trials, 256 women) and (WMD -84.79 millilitres, 95% CI -126.96 to -42.63, two trials, 279 women). More women preferred to have GA for subsequent procedures when compared with epidural (odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.96, one trial, 223 women) or spinal (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.81, 221 women). The incidence of nausea was also less for this group of women compared with epidural (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.64 to 6.14, three trials, 286 women) or spinal (OR 23.22, 95% CI 8.69 to 62.03, 209 women). No significant difference was seen in terms of neonatal Apgar scores of six or less and of four or less at one and five minutes and need for neonatal resuscitation with oxygen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence from this review to show that RA is superior to GA in terms of major maternal or neonatal outcomes. Further research to evaluate neonatal morbidity and maternal outcomes, such as satisfaction with technique, will be useful.

Anesthesia, Conduction↗

[Perineal regional anaesthesia: indications in gynaecologic and proctologic surgery and in obstetric].

Perineal and proctologic surgery is well known as very painful. The apparition of new specific needles, long acting and less toxic local anaesthetics and neurostimulation allowed reconsidering some old forgotten techniques. Those blocks appear really useful to optimize multimodal postoperative analgesia and postoperative rehabilitation. After anatomic review, authors describe perineal regional anaesthesia and discuss about main indications and advantages, in the eyes of their experience and bibliographic review.

Anesthesia, Conduction↗