Search

Introduction: Perioperative anxiety is a common and undesirable outcome in pediatric surgical patients. The use of interactive tools to minimize perioperative anxiety is vastly understudied. The main objective of the current investigation was to compare the effects of a tablet-based interactive distraction (TBID) tool to oral midazolam on perioperative anxiety. We hypothesized that the TBID tool was not inferior to midazolam to reduce perioperative anxiety., Methods: 108 children, ages 1-11 years, presenting for outpatient surgical procedures were prospectively randomized to oral midazolam (0.5 mg·kg(-1); 20 mg max) or TBID. The primary outcome was the change in anxiety level from baseline to parental separation and anesthetic induction. Other data collected included emergence delirium, parental satisfaction, time-to-PACU discharge, and posthospitalization behavior., Results: The mean difference (95% CI) in the increase of anxiety at parental separation between the TBID and the midazolam group was -9 (-2.6 to -16.4), P = 0.006, demonstrating superiority to midazolam group (one-sided P = 0.003). For children 2-11 years, the mean difference (95% CI) in anxiety at induction was significant between the TBID and midazolam groups, -14.0 (-6.1 to -22.0), P < 0.001. The median (IQR) time-to-PACU discharge was 111 (75-197) min in the midazolam group and 87 (55-137) min in the TBID group, P = 0.03. Decreased emergence delirium and increased parental satisfaction were also observed in the TBID group., Conclusions: A TBID tool reduces perioperative anxiety, emergence delirium, and time-to-discharge and increases parental satisfaction when compared to midazolam in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

High-fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) has been hypothesized as a modality for assessing competency of knowledge and skill in patient simulation, but uniform methods for HFPS performance assessment (PA) have not yet been completely achieved. Anesthesiology as a field founded the HFPS discipline and also leads in its PA. This project reviews the types, quality, and designated purpose of HFPS PA tools in anesthesiology. We used the systematic review method and systematically reviewed anesthesiology literature referenced in PubMed to assess the quality and reliability of available PA tools in HFPS. Of 412 articles identified, 50 met our inclusion criteria. Seventy seven percent of studies have been published since 2000; more recent studies demonstrated higher quality. Investigators reported a variety of test construction and validation methods. The most commonly reported test construction methods included "modified Delphi Techniques" for item selection, reliability measurement using inter-rater agreement, and intra-class correlations between test items or subtests. Modern test theory, in particular generalizability theory, was used in nine (18%) of studies. Test score validity has been addressed in multiple investigations and shown a significant improvement in reporting accuracy. However the assessment of predicative has been low across the majority of studies. Usability and practicality of testing occasions and tools was only anecdotally reported. To more completely comply with the gold standards for PA design, both shared experience of experts and recognition of test construction standards, including reliability and validity measurements, instrument piloting, rater training, and explicit identification of the purpose and proposed use of the assessment tool, are required.

Background: The accuracy of information transferred during hand-offs is uncertain., Objective: To describe the frequency, types, and harm potential of medication discrepancies in resident-written sign-outs., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Participants: Internal Medicine interns and their patients at a single hospital in January 2006., Measurements: Daily written sign-outs were compared to daily medication lists in patient charts (gold standard). Medication discrepancies were labeled omissions (medication in chart, but not on sign-out) or commissions (medication on sign-out, but not in chart). Discrepancies were also classified as index errors (the first time an error was made) and the proportion of index errors that persisted on subsequent days. Using a modified classification scheme, discrepancies were rated as having minimal, moderate, or severe potential to harm., Results: One hundred eighty-six of 247 (75%) patients and 10 of 10(100%) interns consented. In the 165 (89%) patients' charts abstracted and compared with the sign-out, there were 1,876 of 6,942 (27%) medication chart entries that were discrepant with the sign-out with 80% (1,490/1,876) labeled omissions. These discrepancies originated from 758 index errors, of which 63% (481) persisted past the first day. Omissions were more likely to persist than commissions (68% [382 of 580] vs 53% [99 of 188], p < .001). Greater than half (54%) of index discrepancies were moderate or severely harmful. Although omissions were more frequent, commissions were more likely to be severely harmful (38% [72 of 188] vs 11% [65 of 580], p < .0001)., Conclusions: Written sign-outs contain potentially harmful medication discrepancies. Whereas linking sign-outs to electronic medical records can address this problem, current efforts should also emphasize the importance of vigilant updating in the many hospitals without this technology.

Hypothesis: Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient adverse events (WSPEs) are devastating, unacceptable, and often result in litigation, but their frequency and root causes are unknown. Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient events are likely more common than realized, with little evidence that current prevention practice is adequate., Design: Analysis of several databases demonstrates that WSPEs occur across all specialties, with high numbers noted in orthopedic and dental surgery. Databases analyzed included: (1) the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), (2) the Florida Code 15 mandatory reporting system, (3) the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Closed Claims Project database, and (4) a novel Web-based system for collecting WSPE cases (http://www.wrong-side.org)., Results: The NPDB recorded 5940 WSPEs (2217 wrong-side surgical procedures and 3723 wrong-treatment/wrong-procedure errors) in 13 years. Florida Code 15 occurrences of WSPEs number 494 since 1991, averaging 75 events per year since 2000. The ASA Closed Claims Project has recorded 54 cases of WSPEs. Analysis of WSPE cases, including WSPE cases submitted to http://www.wrong-side.org, suggest several common causes of WSPEs and recurrent systemic failures. Based on these findings, we estimate that there are 1300 to 2700 WSPEs annually in the United States. Despite a significant number of cases, reporting of WSPEs is virtually nonexistent, with reports in the lay press far more common than reports in the medical literature. Our research suggests clear factors that contribute to the occurrence of WSPEs, as well as ways to reduce them., Conclusions: Wrong-side/wrong-site, wrong-procedure, and wrong-patient adverse events, although rare, are more common than health care providers and patients appreciate. Prevention of WSPEs requires new and innovative technologies, reporting of case occurrence, and learning from successful safety initiatives (such as in transfusion medicine and other high-risk nonmedical industries), while reducing the shame associated with these events.

Background: Substantial efforts are focused on the high prevalence of patient harm due to medical errors and the mechanisms to prevent them. The potential role of the medical student as a valuable member of the team in preventing patient harm has, however, often been overlooked., Methods: Four cases are presented from two US academic health centers in which medical students prevented or were in a position to prevent patient harm from occurring. The authors directly participated in each case., Results: The types of harm prevented included averting non-sterile conditions, missing medications, mitigating exposure to highly contagious patients, and respecting patients' "do not resuscitate" requests., Conclusion: Medical students are often overlooked as valuable participants in ensuring patient safety. These cases show that medical students may be an untapped resource for medical error prevention. Medical students should be trained to recognize errors and to speak up when errors occur. Those supervising students should welcome and encourage students to actively communicate observed errors and near misses and should work to eliminate all intimidation by medical hierarchy that can prevent students from being safety advocates.