Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T15:25:38.953Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anaesthesiologists' views on the need for point-of-care information system in the operating room: a survey of the European Society of Anaesthesiologists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2005

A. Perel ,
H. Berkenstadt ,
A. Ziv ,
R. Katzenelson  and
A. Aitkenhead
A. Perel
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel
H. Berkenstadt
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel Tel Aviv University, Israel Center for Medical Simulation, Sheba Medical Centre, Tel Hashomer, Israel
A. Ziv
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Israel Center for Medical Simulation, Sheba Medical Centre, Tel Hashomer, Israel
R. Katzenelson
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Tel Hashomer, Israel
A. Aitkenhead
Affiliation:
Queen's Medical Centre, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Department, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Nottingham, UK
Get access

Abstract

Summary

Background and objective: In this preliminary study we wanted to explore the attitudes of anaesthesiologists to a point-of-care information system in the operating room. The study was conducted as a preliminary step in the process of developing such a system by the European Society of Anaesthesiologists (ESA).

Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to all 2240 attendees of the ESA's annual meeting in Gothenburg, Sweden, which took place in April 2001.

Results: Of the 329 responders (response rate of 14.6%), 79% were qualified specialists with more than 10 yr of experience (68%), mostly from Western Europe. Most responders admitted to regularly experiencing lack of medical knowledge relating to real-time patient care at least once a month (74%) or at least once a week (46%), and 39% admitted to having made errors during anaesthesia due to lack of medical information that can be other-wise found in a handbook. The choice of a less optimal but more familiar approach to patient management due to lack of knowledge was reported by 37%. Eighty-eight percent of responders believe that having a point-of-care information system for the anaesthesiologists in the operating room is either important or very important.

Conclusions: This preliminary survey demonstrates that lack of knowledge of anaesthesiologists may be a significant source of medical errors in the operating room, and suggests that a point-of-care information system for the anaesthesiologist may be of value.

Keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS, anaesthesiology, operating roomEDUCATION, MEDICAL, anaesthesiology, continuing, graduateRISK MANAGEMENTSAFETY MANAGEMENTMEDICAL ERRORS
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 21 , Issue 11 , November 2004 , pp. 898 - 901
Copyright
2004 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cooper JB, Gaba D. No myth: anesthesia is a model for addressing patient safety. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 1335–1337.Google Scholar
Small SD. Reframing the question of human error: tools to navigate the next era in anesthesia safety. ASA Refresh Course Lecture 2001; 29.Google Scholar
Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M, eds. To err is human – building a safer health system.Committee on Quality in America. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.
Berwick DM, Leape LL. Reducing errors in medicine. BMJ 1999; 319: 136–137.Google Scholar
Doing What Counts for Patient Safety: Federal Actions to Reduce Medical Errors and Their Impact. Report of the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force to the President. February 2000 (http://www.quic.gov/).
Weinger MB, Patkiskas C, Wilkund M, Carstensen P. Incorporating human factors into the design of medical devices. JAMA 1998; 280: 1484.Google Scholar
Spencer FC. Human errors in hospitals and industrial accidents: current concepts. Am Coll Surg 2000; 191: 410–418.Google Scholar
Gravenstein JS. How does human error affect safety in anesthesia? Surg Oncol Clin North America 2000; 9: 81–95.Google Scholar
Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Kitz RJ. An analysis of major errors and equipment failure in anesthesia management: considerations for prevention and detection. Anesthesiology 1984; 60: 34–42.Google Scholar
Khan FA, Hoda MQ. A prospective survey of intraoperative critical incidents in a teaching hospital in a developing country. Anaesthesia 2001; 56: 177–182.Google Scholar
DeAnda A, Gaba DM. Unplanned incidents during comprehensive anesthesia simulation. Anesth Analg 1990; 71: 77–82.Google Scholar
Chopra V, Bovill JG, Spierdijk J, Koornneef F. Reported significant observations during anaesthesia: a prospective analysis over an 18-month period. Br J Anaesth 1992; 68: 13–17.Google Scholar
Yamamoto Y, Ikeda K, Nakajima Y. The statistical analysis of quality improvement system at Hamamatsu University School of Medicine for 5 years. In: Ikeda K, Doi M, Kazama T, eds. State of the Art Technology in Anesthesia and Intensive Care.Amsterdam: Elsevier; New York: Lausanne; Singapore/Tokyo: Shannon, 1998.
Webster CS, Merry AF, Larsson L, McGrath KA, Weller J. The frequency and nature of drug administration errors during anesthesia. Anaesth Intens Care 2001; 29: 494–500.Google Scholar
Cullen DJ, Bates DW, Leape LL. Adverse Drug Event Prevention Study Group. Adverse drug events: a decade of progress in patient safety. J Clin Anesth 2000; 12: 600–614.Google Scholar