Search

Medication error is a well-recognised cause of harm to patients undergoing anaesthesia. From the first 4000 reports in the webAIRS anaesthetic incident reporting system, we identified 462 reports of medication errors. These reports were reviewed iteratively by several reviewers paying particular attention to their narratives. The commonest error category was incorrect dose (29.4%), followed by substitution (28.1%), incorrect route (7.6%), omission (6.5%), inappropriate choice (5.8%), repetition (5.4%), insertion (4.1%), wrong timing (3.5%), wrong patient (1.5%), wrong side (1.5%) and others (6.5%). Most (58.9%) of the errors resulted in at least some harm (20.8% mild, 31.0% moderate and 7.1% severe). Contributing factors to the medication errors included the presence of look-alike medications, storage of medications in the incorrect compartment, inadequate labelling of medications, pressure of time, anaesthetist fatigue, unfamiliarity with the medication, distraction, involvement of multiple people and poor communication. These data add to current evidence suggesting a persistent and concerning failure effectively to address medication safety in anaesthesia. The wide variation in the nature of the errors and contributing factors underline the need for increased systematic and multifaceted efforts underpinned by a strengthening of the current focus on safety culture to improve medication safety in anaesthesia. This will require the concerted and committed engagement of all concerned, from practitioners at the clinical workface, to those who fund and manage healthcare.

Purpose of Review: The purpose is to show the advantages of a Bowtie diagram as a versatile tool for displaying and understanding the evolvement and management of critical incidents., Recent Findings: The Bowtie diagram has been used recently in anesthesia to depict critical incidents having been used in high-risk industries for several decades. This diagram displays the progression from latent factors to potential harm in five steps., Summary: The Bowtie diagram combines the features of a fault tree and an event tree with the adverse event, known as the Top Event separating the two sections. The fault tree is similar in concept to a Swiss Cheese diagram and the event tree similar in concept to an emergency management algorithm. Preventive barriers and escalation measures are used to detect and trap abnormal states. If these fail, the event proceeds to a crisis, leading to the Top Event, a time for making decisions. A recovery state follows, which depicts an emergency state mandating immediate life or limb-saving management to recover from the crisis. Finally, in the aftermath state, a time for reflection and learning, ultimate outcomes are shown in the right-hand column., Video Abstract: The Bowtie Diagram. Designed and created by Yasmin Endlich, Martin D. Culwick and Stavros N. Prineas, http://links.lww.com/COAN/A68.

This audit of airway incidents was conducted over six months in 12 tertiary level hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. During that time, 131,233 patients had airway management and 111 reports were submitted (incidence 0.08%). The airway incidents included a combination of difficult airway management (83), oxygen desaturation (58), aspiration (19), regurgitation (14), laryngospasm (16), airway bleeding (10), bronchospasm (5) and dental injury (4), which gave a total of 209 events in 111 reports. Most incidents occurred during general anaesthesia (GA; 83.8%) and normal working hours (81.1%). Forty-three percent were associated with head and neck surgery and 12.6% with upper abdominal procedures. Of these patients, 52% required further medical treatment or additional procedures and 16.2% required unplanned admission to an intensive care unit or a high dependency unit. A total of 31.5% of patients suffered from temporary harm and 1.8% from permanent harm. There was one death. The factors associated with a high relative risk (RR) of an airway incident included American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) (ASA PS 2 versus 1, RR 1.75; ASA PS 3 versus 1, RR 3.56; ASA PS 4 versus 1, RR 6.1), and emergency surgery (RR 2.16 compared with elective). Sedation and monitored anaesthesia care were associated with lower RRs (RR 0.49 and RR 0.73 versus GA, respectively). Inadequate airway assessment, poor judgement and poor planning appeared to be contributors to these events. Future teaching and research should focus on these areas to further improve airway management and patient safety.