Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2017; 05(01): E83-E89
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-117219
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

A prospective study of patient safety incidents in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Manmeet Matharoo
1   The Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark’s Hospital, Harrow, UK
2   Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
,
Adam Haycock
1   The Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark’s Hospital, Harrow, UK
2   Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
,
Nick Sevdalis
3   Centre for Implementation Science, Health Service and Population Research Department, King’s College London, UK
,
Siwan Thomas-Gibson
1   The Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy, St. Mark’s Hospital, Harrow, UK
2   Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College, London, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted25 May 2016

accepted after revision09 September 2016

Publication Date:
17 November 2016 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Medical error occurs frequently with significant morbidity and mortality. This study aime to assess the frequency and type of endoscopy patient safety incidents (PSIs).

Patients and methods A prospective observational study of PSIs in routine diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy was undertaken in a secondary and tertiary care center. Observations were undertaken within the endoscopy suite across pre-procedure, intra-procedure and post-procedure phases of care. Experienced (Consultant-level) and trainee endoscopists from medical, surgical, and nursing specialities were included. PSIs were defined as any safety issue that had the potential to or directly adversely affected patient care: PSIs included near misses, complications, adverse events and “never events”. PSIs were reviewed by an expert panel and categorized for severity and nature via expert consensus.

Results One hundred and forty procedures (92 diagnostic, 48 therapeutic) over 37 lists (experienced operators n = 25, trainees n = 12) were analyzed. One hundred forty PSIs were identified (median 1 per procedure, range 0 – 7). Eighty-six PSIs (61 %) occurred in 48 therapeutic procedures. Zero PSIs were detected in 13 diagnostic procedures. 21 (15 %) PSIs were categorized as severe and 12 (9 %) had the potential to be “never events,” including patient misidentification and wrong procedure. Forty PSIs (28 %) were of intermediate severity and 78 (56 %) were minor. Oxygen monitoring PSIs occurred most frequently.

Conclusion This is the first study documenting the range and frequency of PSIs in endoscopy. Although many errors are minor without immediate consequence, further work should identify whether prevention of such recurrent errors affects the incidence of severe errors, thus improving safety and quality.

 

  • References

  • 1 de Vries EN. Ramrattan MA. Smorenburg SM. et al. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2008; 17: 216-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Leape L. The nature of adverse events in hospitalised patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 377-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Thomas E. Studdert D. Burstin H. et al. Incidence and types of adverse events and negligent care in Utah and Colorado. Med Care 2000; 38: 261-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kohn L. Corrigan J. Donaldson M. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Healthcare System. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Vincent C. Neale G. Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001; 322: 517-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Vincent C. Moorthy K. Sarker SK. et al. Systems Approaches to Surgical Quality and Safety. Ann Surg 2004; 239: 475-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Reason JT. Human error: models and management. BMJ 2000; 320: 768-770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 NHS England. Patient Safety Domain: Revised Never Events Policy and Framework. London: 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Jensen L. Merry A. Webster C. et al. Evidence-based strategies for preventing drug administration errors during anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2004; 2004: 493-504
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pronovost P. Needham D. Berenholtz S. et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2725-2732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gaba D. Anaesthesiology as a model for patient safety in health care. BMJ 2000; 320: 785-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Catchpole K. Mishra A. Handa A. et al. Teamwork and error in the operating room: analysis of skills and roles. Ann Surg 2008; 247: 699-706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cotton PB. Advanced Digestive Endoscopy: Practice and Safety. Massachusetts: Wiley Blackwell; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Rabeneck L. Paszat LF. Hilsden RJ. et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1899-1906, 1906 e1891
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Cullinane M. Gray A. Hargraves C. et al. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death: Scoping our practice. 2004
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bowles CJA. Leicester R. Romaya C. et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?. Gut 2004; 53: 277-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Rex DK. Bond JH. Field AD. Medical-legal risks of incident cancers after clearing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 952-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Richter JM. Kelsey PB. Campbell EJ. Adverse event and complication management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 348-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gavin DR. Valori RM. Anderson JT. et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lee TJ. Rutter MD. Blanks RG. et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sint Nicolaas J. de Jonge V. de Man RA. et al. The Global Rating Scale in clinical practice: a comprehensive quality assurance programme for endoscopy departments. Dig Liver Dis 2012; 44: 919-924
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cotton PB. Eisen GM. Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Barach P. Small SD. Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. BMJ 2000; 320: 759-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 The Patient Safety Policy Team. The “never events” list 2012/13. Department of Health; 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lilford R. Mohammed M. Braunholtz D. et al. The measurement of active errors: methodological issues. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: ii8-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Catchpole KR. Giddings AE. Wilkinson M. et al. Improving patient safety by identifying latent failures in successful operations. Surgery 2007; 142: 102-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Flin R. Patey R. Glavin R. et al. Anaesthetists' non-technical skills. Br J Anaesth 2010; 105: 38-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 BSG. Guidelines on Safety and Sedation During Endoscopic Procedures. 1991
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dumonceau JM. Riphaus A. Beilenhoff U. et al. European curriculum for sedation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA). Endoscopy 2013; 45: 496-504
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dumonceau JM. Riphaus A. Aparicio JR. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates, and the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guideline: Non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol for GI endoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 960-974
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Matharoo M. Haycock A. Sevdalis N. et al. Endoscopic non-technical skills team training: The next step in quality assurance of endoscopy training. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 17507-17515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Veitch A. Rutter M. Improving quality in endoscopy: are we nearly there yet?. Frontline Gastroenterology 2015; DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2015-100564.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Robertson DJ. Kaminski MF. Bretthauer M. Effectiveness, training and quality assurance of colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer. Gut 2015; 64: 982-990
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Howell AM. Burns EM. Hull L. et al. International recommendations for national patient safety incident reporting systems: an expert Delphi consensus-building process. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004456.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Matharoo M. Thomas-Gibson S. Haycock A. et al. Implementation of an Endoscopy Safety Checklist. Frontline Gastroenterology 2014; DOI: 10.1136/flgastro-2013-100393.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Vincent C. Framework for analysing risk and safety in clinical medicine. BMJ 1998; 316: 1154-1157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 McCambridge J. Witton J. Elbourne D. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 267-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Runciman WB. Baker GR. Michel P. et al. Tracing the foundations of a conceptual framework for a patient safety ontology. Qual Saf Helath Care 2010; 19: e56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar